id stringlengths 7 11 | text stringlengths 52 10.2k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|---|
train_11427 | I loved this film because in my mind it seemed to so perfectly capture what I imagined life in French colonial Africa must have been like in the 50's ("my" generation anyway). But I was truly enraptured by its quiet pacing and by the glorious ending. Within the last 5 minutes of this film, you must focus intently on what's happening. Never have I been more impressed with the "wrap-up" of a film. I remember yelling "wow!" when I realized it was over. On the other hand, my two daughters fell asleep on the couch!! | 1 |
train_12091 | `Castle of Blood' (aka `Castle of Terror') is a well-crafted, surprisingly spooky entry from Italian director Anthony Dawson. Exquisite black and white cinematography, flawless dubbing, superb casting, fairly logical scripting, deliberate pacing and a surprise (though totally appropriate) ending set this one apart. Only the films sometimes hokey music and the rather abrupt `love at first sight' between Elizabeth (Barbara Steele) and Alan (Georges Rivière) mar an otherwise surprisingly entertaining movie.While visiting England, Edgar Allan Poe sits in a pub, telling one of his ghostly stories to Count Blackwood. Recognizing the great writer, Alan, a young news reporter, requests an interview with Poe. During the course of the conversation, Poe reveals that all of his stories are true. Incredulous, Alan expresses his skepticism about life after death. Count Blackwood offers to bet Alan 100 pounds that he cannot survive this night in Blackwood's castle, a night following Halloween when the dead walk. Alan cannot afford the bet, so he bets his life for a 10 pound wager.Unlike Mario Bava's overpraised `Black Sunday,' (aka `The Mask of Satan'), `Castle of Blood' is fairly restrained, making the few moments of violence even more dreadful, especially surprising from a director usually associated with those terrible Italian space movies from the 60s.It's a pity the only version of this film I've found is badly deteriorated (and recorded) pan and scan version. Even so, it is well worth seeing, and cries out for a modern remake, perhaps with Christina Ricci or Jennifer Love Hewitt in the role of Elizabeth. Watch it and enjoy a film that compares well with Robert Wise's `The Haunting'. | 1 |
train_19823 | Well.......in contrast to other comments previously written I have to say that the only good thing about this film is the fact that one guy in it looked a bit like Jason Donavon which reminded me of my youth. I have no idea how it won any awards, and although I'm sure a great deal of effort went into making it it was all fruitless as the final outcome is one which screams of early 90's foreign soap operas. The plot was non-existent, the cinematography was hopeless and the acting was on par with an a-level performance. It was unfortunately long and the sub-plots were incredibly unrealistic....for example....if your best friend slept with your ex-boyfriend of 6 years after only 2 weeks of being broken up you would not all remain the best of friends. It was all fantasy. That's all! Oh yeah, and the weird 90's house/soft core indie was mind numbing! | 0 |
train_23854 | I, also having endured hundreds of children's movies in the past, consider this to be one of the worst I have ever seen.1) I resent in this day and age having to explain to my children that Russia is not "the bad guys". Also, that mocking Russian names like "Poopchev" is inappropriate.2) The grandfather fly's birthday party scene contained a quasi-sexist joke in which he implied that males drink beer and women talk on the phone. Two other flies also needlessly use the word "crap" twice.3) The whole movie largely smacks of 1950's stereotypes and propaganda that I thought we, as a nation, were proud to have risen above.In all it's just crude, badly animated, even more badly written and not worth wasting the time to view. | 0 |
train_11484 | I just came back from the Montreal premiere of Zero Day...and i'm surprised as hell to find a negative comment on the movie. Basically the blame is about Coccio doing an easy and overplayed social message...well, Mr-I'm-a-reviewer, it's an easy and overplayed critic of movies with a social charge.Not that I want to expose my life here, but I come from a small town with a similar school than these guys go. Reject & ignorance on the menu. Thing is...I understand how can young kids can be driven to do such horror. High schools have became battle fields of conformity. It's a real ugly sight. You need to fight your way into being like the others. It's hard to explain, bit a lot of people dosen't realize that high schools are becoming cemeteries of human intelligence. Meanwhile, parents are closing their eyes and smiling about how their life in their comfortable suburb is perfect.The real motive of the movie isn't about what is driving them. It's about this death-like calm suburb and everybody closing their eyes and trying to create this atmosphere of a perfect town. Cal expressed it well. It's a wake up call. Drama is everywhere and it can take every shape. In that case little dramas(like Andre being called a faggot for wearing a J.C Penny shirt) are shaping into being the worse nightmare of a whole town. Andre & Cal took the most extreme way to express their pain. The malaise of unconformity in an era where you need more than ever to be like the others to be accepted.I like particularly the last scenes where some guys are burning the crosses of Andre & Cal, like if with the pain they communicated, Cal & Andre have communicated their blind rage to their community, their refusal to think about the causes of some acts. It might seemed aggressive as a movie, but Coccio is meditating more than whining or enunciating. What Andre & Cal are living is a reality...and a scary one that might get to other kids. Disturbing movie...Home making and strong feeling made Ben Coccio do a very very disturbing movie. | 1 |
train_23643 | Hi, I'm a friend of werewolf movies, and when i saw the title of Darkwolf hitting the shelves i was like "hmm, simple and nice name to it at least. Althou... i wonder why i haven't heard of it before."First of all, the movie starts with tits. Lots of tits. Tits are pretty much all this movies budget went to. Who cares about a werewolf effect, just pay the actresses enough to get topless shots!So, about the mysterious darkwolf character (a little spoilers ahead, but who really cares...) He's your average everyday biker. Not even super-tough looking, but like the old wise woman says in the movie "he is far more powerful and dangerous than you've ever faced before." Just by describing her a tattooed biker-type of a guy. Pretty original. I even had look twice when they first used the "red glowing eyes" SPECIAL EFFECT! I mean my god, that "lets-plant-red-dots-on-eyes-with-computer" effect has been used since the seventies. It looks plain ugly here! And don't get me started with the werewolf 3D-CGI. As said before, like an bad and old video game.And finally, as i do like werewolf films, like i said. They prettymuch always build a werewolf-legend of their own. Darkwolf does build the werewolfworld as well, about some silly legends of hybrid-werewolves and the ancient bloodline. BUT. It almost instantly after creating the rules of engagement "the darkwolf kills anyone the girl has touched" starts random-slashing. Which just doesn't make any sense, why even bother telling us the rules of killing, when they aren't even gonna play by them... Aplus the wolf-point-of-view shots are made with a sony handycam or something, filming mostly the floor and walls. Just add growling noises and you've got a super werewolf effect. The gore is partially OK. But when the wolf slashes everyone with an open hand, just by basically laying the hand on top of the victims, it just doesn't do the trick for me...Truly, WHO gives money to make these heaps of junk straight-to-video horrortitles, they aren't even funny-kind of bad movies, just sad. | 0 |
train_23139 | Thoughtless, ignorant, ill-conceived, career-killing (where is the talented Angela Jones now?), deeply unfunny garbage. It's no wonder Reb Braddock hasn't directed anything else since - anyone who has a chance to make his first film on his own rules, based on his own script, with the help of Quentin Tarantino himself, and creates something like THIS, anyone who feels that THIS was a story worth telling to the world, doesn't deserve a second break. Under the circumstances, the performances are good - the actors do what they're told to do, and they do it well. It's just that they shouldn't have done it in the first place. 0 out of 4. | 0 |
train_10157 | This is an entertaining look at the Gospel as presented by Johnny Cash (adorned in black, of course) who sings a lot and narrates a bit also. If you like Johnny Cash, this film is quite enjoyable. Also note the blonde depiction of Jesus in this work...just for fun, try to think of five Jewish men who have blonde hair...? Anyway, its a fun presentation of the greatest and most important story of all. | 1 |
train_18683 | In 2005,George W. Bush started with his second period as a President of the United States; North Korea announced its possession of nuclear weapons; Pope John Paul II died after a long illness; and a movie called Into the Blue appeared.The existence of this movie is not as bad as the other things that happened on that year,but the film itself was pathetic and maybe,the worst one from that year.Now,in 2009,the United States have another President,there is another Pope,new Korean nuclear weapons...and the film Into the Blue 2 : The Reef,which is better than the original one...but that's the same as saying : "getting your fingers cut is better than getting your head cut".This sequel is a really bad film which kept me tremendously bored and uninterested.The cast of Into the Blue 2 : The Reef is composed by TV-series actors who completely lack of any credibility and dramatic weight,but who are perfect for showing their bodies.Chris Carmack (The O.C.),David Anders (Heroes and Alias),Laura Vandervoort (Smallville),Marsha Tomason (Lost) and Audrina Patridge (The Hills) bring hollow and boring performances.I have liked some previous movies from director Stephen Herek (Critters and Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure specially) but on this movie,he cannot generate even the minimum level of tension,emotion or entertainment.The characters from this movie are not only badly performed,but they are also repulsive.Honestly,I wanted all of them to die.The cinematography from this movie is also lame and it seems to have been made by a technical team who makes promotional videos for Hawaiian hotels.Into the Blue 2 : The Reef is a horrible movie which is better than the original film,but that's the same as nothing,as I previously said.Avoid this crappy film at all costs. | 0 |
train_16371 | I try to be very objective when I view a low budget movie. I also apply a lower weight to independent and low budget productions versus the big budget productions. I expect near flawlessness from big budget productions and their studios. Therefore I apply tougher criteria to the major studio releases. But this movie was just a dud. Period. The premise was terrible. The main character, Mary Gordano (Alicia Silverstone), was unbelievable as a high school senior with an unquenchable desire to solve crimes. There was not enough depth in her character or her acting that pulled you into her world. Also, to make this movie more mysterious, the lighting in certain scenes did not set the mood, especially in the warehouse.Once again another disappointing movie that I could only give three points to. | 0 |
train_23597 | This is exactly the sort of Saturday matinee serial I loved during World War II. I was under ten years of age. And that's the audience this serial is designed for. Looking at it now, one must roar at its ineptitude and stupidity. The budget must have been next to nothing, given the shortcuts and repeats. The acting? Well, this is Republic pictures, 1944. They read the lines....and no doubt had one take to make them convincing.One and half stars. | 0 |
train_13980 | He pulled the guys guts out his butt! That's a spoof right?! No one really writes that it just happens like improv gone horribly wrong. I think any way. This movie must be a spoof because who would say they wrote that script otherwise. Can anyone imagine the entire cast sitting around as the director and writers go over the storyboard.Director says, "next our inbreed villain uses his 24 inch machete to disembowel our token creepy neighbor. Get this, he is going to pull the guts out his bunghole""Brilliant!" the entire cast proclaims.No way can that happen, nobody writes that stupid! Gotta be a spoof.I loved the part where the skinny introspective gal beats the inbreed freak to death with the cast iron skillet she finds on the floor of the cave. I wasn't sure the inbreed cannibal types bothered to cook much. Maybe that explains why the skillet was lying on the floor in the dark at just the right time to kill the malformed hulk. Seems ironic that after the freaky guy had bested martial arts expert porn queens and a couple out doors type jocks he falls so easily to the frying pan of a skinny defenseless girl next door. What the heck is that Richard Greco guy doing in this? Did he fire his agent or something? Can anyone explain the ending to me please because I didn't get it either? I can't quite figure why the nice hero girl wanted to kill the funny lady who was making her some tea. Never mind I don't want to know. | 0 |
train_1003 | Another Aussie masterpiece, this delves into the world of the unknown and the supernatural, and it does very well. It doesn't resort to the big special effects overkill like American flicks, it focuses more on emotional impact. A relatively simple plot that Rebecca Gibney & Co. bring to life. It follows the story of a couple who buy an old house that was supposedly home to a very old woman who never went outside, and whose husband disappeared in mysterious circumstances a century ago. Strange things begin to happen in the house, and John Adam begins to turn into the man who disappeared, who was actually a mass murderer. Highly recommended. 8/10 | 1 |
train_18207 | I watched this movie last night on one of the pay-per-view channels, and while watching it I quickly wondered why I bothered. In all honesty I really did expect something more from this film. Maybe something along the lines of 'Conspiracy Theory'. Why? Maybe because of the casting. I mean, Nicolas Cage and Harvey Keitel, after all. Not to mention Jon Voight and Christopher Plummer. Now I'm wondering, why did they bother? But instead of an absorbing action cum mystery drama I was caught up in a pastiche of breakneck silliness a là 'The Goonies', which to my great surprise appears to have garnered some actual critical praise. Perhaps it's because 'The Goonies' was clearly targeted toward the pre-teen and teen audiences. Whereas 'National Treasure', judging from the previews, was seriously intended to appeal to an adult audience.Suspension of disbelief is one thing. It's how one can enjoy sci-fi and horror. But I found myself actually resisting the heaping tablespoons of paranoid and conspiracy-laden tripe being shoved at the audience. Oh, the screenwriter threw around all the jargon intended to evoke a sense of serious engaged wonderment. "Wow! The Masons. The Knights Templars. You know, this could really be true!" I think the writer really lost me when Gates said the Founding Fathers hid the treasure to keep it out of the hands of the British! And just were did the Knights Templar come from? New Jersey? Oh, I forget. From France! Which goes a long way to explain how it ended up in Philadelphia during the Revolution. It was brought there by agents of Napoleon! Anyway, you see what I'm getting at. The premise of the movie is interesting. And I really do think it could have succeeded as a serious mystery drama. But it just comes off as another kid flick in grown-up clothing. In the end I think it asks the audience not simply to suspend belief but to render itself willfully ignorant to an insulting degree.I've just finished watching several items by Werner Herzog and Istvan Szabo. It's a shock to switch from fine dining to Hollywood Big Mac and fries.Okay, okay. If you pant over chases, explosions, and 'gee-whiz' gimmickry you'll enjoy 'National Treasure'. But it's the sort of movie, well, have you ever stood outside a cinema waiting to get in while the previous audience comes out? And all the young kids are talking excitedly among themselves and saying things like, "Wow! Did you see how that thing blew up? That was so cool!" 'National Treasure' is that kind of movie. | 0 |
train_6851 | De Palma's technique had hit its high maturity by the time of this film, which is a wonderful showcase of his classic techniques, though unfortunately, as with many of the films written by De Palma himself, the story serves the meta more than the interests of putting forth an emotionally compelling tale. The story opens with a CRAZY scene in which Angie Dickinson masturbates in a shower while she looks at her husband. She is then grabbed and raped while he husband stands obliviously near-and the whole thing is revealed to be Angie's fantasy as he husband is pumping mindlessly away at her in bed. She has a short scene with her son, a dead ringer for Harry Potter, which concludes with a joke that "she'll tell grandma that he is playing with his peter." She then goes to her therapy session, where she complains about her dead marriage, before attempting to seduce her therapist, Michael Caine. He refuses, and she is hurt and feeling unattractive and unfulfilled.Then begins a bravura 22-minute nearly wordless sequence that is perhaps the highlight of the film. Among the many things De Palma gleaned from Hitchcock is the understanding of film as a purely visual medium of telling stories
and in typical De Palma fashion, he turns this into a way to show off his formidable skill. The problem, for me, is that in this instance one begins to feel that scenes are being needlessly protracted simply to further show off the director's skill. The sequence begins with Angie at an art museum. She watches strangers, all involved in sexual or family activities, then begins to get turned on to a man sitting next to her. De Palma very skillfully tells an extremely complicated narrative without a single word about Angie's attraction, embarrassment, retreating, and finally finding and submitting to the stranger in the back of a taxi cab, all set to a wonderfully lush score by Pino Donaggio, who also scored Carrie.In the second part of the sequence Angie has slept with the guy, and gets up to return to her husband. Again De Palma crams a ton of narrative in without a word of dialogue uttered, as Angie realizes that she doesn't have her panties, that her husband is already home and no doubt wondering where she is, that she has probably contracted a venereal disease, and that she has lost her engagement ring somewhere in the shuffle. It's all very admirable, but one begins to feel a little strung along as we are forced to do things like take a long elevator ride down from the seventh floor, then up again, almost in real time....Spoilers from here on out! When Angie reaches the seventh floor again, she is killed by a big woman with blond hair. The woman hacks away at her until she reaches the ground floor, when the door opens and Nancy Allen sees her there. There is a wonderful slow-motion sequence as Nancy reaches into the elevator, Angie reaches up toward her, and the killer's blade is held poised to slash Nancy's hands. Then follow some electrifying shots as Nancy looks up and sees the killer in the elevators convex mirror. It's all good, and by the time we have some dialogue again, you think; "Woah, that was just 22 straight minutes of purely visual narrative!" Or maybe you don't, but I do.A younger Dennis Franz has a great part as a sleazy and tough New York detective who would rather that everyone else do his work for him. He Interviews Michael Caine, making the outrageous implication (though it passes as commonplace) that Angie WANTED to be killed. Angie's son is there as well, and he hooks up with Nancy, and they set about to spy on Caine's therapist and find out who the killer is.Once again there is a strong tie to a Hitchcock film, in this case Psycho (just as Obsession is a re-working of Vertigo). You have a woman who we are supposed to understand is secretly a slut, who gets killed in the first 30 minutes in an enclosed space, in this case an elevator rather than a shower. Then the relatives of the deceased conduct an investigation, which reveals that the killer is a man who dresses as a woman to kill. De Palma even throws in a doctor at the end who explains the psychology of the whole thing. It is very interesting, but at the same time a viewer can begin to feel a bit jerked around, and that is my primary reservation about this film. It is definitely essential viewing and showcases some of De Palma's greatest setpieces, but that feeling that the story is running a solid third behind the need for De Palma to show off and his somewhat unseemly sexual fantasies makes it hard to look back on this one with whole-hearted affection.--- Check out other reviews on my website of bad and cheesy movies, Cinema de Merde, cinemademerde.com | 1 |
train_7025 | I found this to be a charming adaptation, very lively and full of fun. With the exception of a couple of major errors, the cast is wonderful. I have to echo some of the earlier comments -- Chynna Phillips is horribly miscast as a teenager. At 27, she's just too old (and, yes, it DOES show), and lacks the singing "chops" for Broadway-style music. Vanessa Williams is a decent-enough singer and, for a non-dancer, she's adequate. However, she is NOT Latina, and her character definitely is. She's also very STRIDENT throughout, which gets tiresome.The girls of Sweet Apple's Conrad Birdie fan club really sparkle -- with special kudos to Brigitta Dau and Chiara Zanni. I also enjoyed Tyne Daly's performance, though I'm not generally a fan of her work. Finally, the dancing Shriners are a riot, especially the dorky three in the bar.The movie is suitable for the whole family, and I highly recommend it. | 1 |
train_21031 | In this forgettable trifle, the 40-ish Norma Shearer plays a fluttery, girlish socialite in Monte Carlo, caught in a tussle between George Sanders and Robert Taylor. It would be tempting to blame this movie's failure on the dull, talky script, or director George Cukor, who never seems interested in livening up the film's generally comatose state. Mostly, though, it's the fault of Shearer herself, who desperately wanted to keep playing "young" parts as long as she could get away with it. Inadvertently, this makes "Her Cardboard Lover" a bizarre monument to an aging woman's vanity. | 0 |
train_22602 | If ever there was a film that deserved a big fat zero rating it's this pile of crap. I love zombie films and even bad ones usually have something going for them but not this atrocity. I actually began to feel angry watching this film because it's so insultingly poor, I can't believe the people responsible for it would actually think this was acceptable.There's no plot and the non-plot is cut with scenes of sadism and spanking. The people don't react, act or in any way resemble human beings. The entire movie is also shot in two rooms scantily decorated to vaguely resemble the places they are supposed to be. The whole thing is one pointless mess, it doesn't go anywhere and when the zombies finally turn up they look rubbish and don't do very much.I could make a better film than this, so could you and so could someone who had never seen a movie before. It's pitiful and without doubt the worst movie of all time.Honestly, the very worst movie of all time. You'll note by the way that the only positive reviews give this a 10/10 and urge you to BUY the DVD. I can't imagine anyone neutral genuinely thinking this is a good film, it's terrible.0/10 and that's generous. | 0 |
train_22071 | Someone, some day, should do a study of architecture as it figures in horror films; of all those explorations of weirdly laid out mansions, searches for secret passageways and crypts, trackings of monsters through air ducts, and so forth. Offhand I can recall only a few films in which architecture played a major role throughout--"Demon Seed," "Cube," the remake of "Thirteen Ghosts"--but it's at the heart of every story about a spooky house or church or crypt; it's all about the character and the affect of spaces, passages, and walls. So I was looking forward to this thriller where it promised to be central. The idea is this: An architect has built--actually, rebuilt--for himself a huge and rambling house; his wife has just left him, mainly because of his own self-centeredness, but also, it is intimated, because she can't get used to the place since he remodeled it. Living in unaccustomed solitude (real this time, rather than virtual), he comes to suspect that somebody else--a stranger who had come to the door one evening asking to use the phone and then suddenly disappeared--is living into the house with him; only the place is big enough so that he never sees him.This is a good start for a melodrama, whose development one would expect to follow some such lines as these: After searching the house for the intruder a few times without success, the architect resorts to his blueprints to undertake more systematic searches, trying in various ways to surprise, intercept, or ambush the intruder, maybe by means of some special features he built into the structure. Meanwhile the intruder has discovered hiding places and back ways between places that the architect didn't foresee or doesn't remember. The movie would turn into a cat-and-mouse game, a hunt, a battle; and finally, in trying to trap the intruder, the architect himself would end up trapped in his own creation, in some way he didn't expect. Then he would be forced to think himself out of it--and maybe at the same time out of his own self-imposed isolation--and in a final twist would nail, and maybe even kill, the ****er.Nothing like this happens in this movie; the house is just a house, the architect is just a guy, and his nemesis is of an unknown character, if he exists at all. Here is what does happen in the movie: Once the intruder is installed in the house--if he is--the architect begins hearing noises, but when he goes to investigate finds nothing. He calls the police, they think he's slightly nuts; he persuades his estranged wife to spend the night, she thinks he's more nuts. At last, more or less accidentally, he runs into the intruder (doesn't get a good look, but figures, who else could it be?--not a hard question, in a story with, to that point, fewer than three principal characters), whereupon he locks the doors, lowers the grills on the windows, throws away the key (I don't know why he thought this necessary), and leaves his victim to starve. I missed why this was a given: the doors and walls are made of steel? In any event, the architect takes to sleeping in his car. And since the idea of the movie has languished undeveloped and cannot now be developed further, something else must be devised to take its place. And this is it: The architect--are you ready?--moves into the house of the man who (presumably) moved into his, and lives there in the same way. How is this possible? It is not, but the movie takes this route to try and make it seem so: The architect has drawn a picture of the man who came to his door; and when he leaves the house he takes the picture with him; and while sitting in his car, he throws the picture into the street; and two kids pick it up and observe that it looks like Martin, their neighbor; whereupon the architect asks where his house is and the kids point the way.If this sequence seems to verge on the implausible, what ensues plunges right in. The architect takes up residence with Martin's wheelchair-ridden wife, unbeknownst to her; so stealthy in his moves and so cunning in his reading of his hostess that he's able always to leave a room just as she enters or to duck out of sight just as she turns around. Throughout this section the movie is clever in one way, making (or leaving it to the viewer to make) the point that his life with this stranger, who doesn't know he's there, is in essence the same life he lived with his wife, as a virtual recluse with her as a convenient buffer. But at the same time, his inability to live in the world makes his transformation into Raffles the cat-burglar entirely incredible. Not to go into the series of twists at the end--including another murder achieved by locking someone in behind another invincible door--this one in front of a landing so flimsy that it collapses under the weight of a wheelchair; two nice people who take murder in stride; and (before the story started) the unnoticed construction of a tunnel under several houses.... To the final, long-anticipated twist, the movie adds another, to make it even more offensive, and then...ends.Here is a story that depends on the development of two things--the idea of the stranger in the house, and the character of the man whose house it is--and fumbles both. The first fumble makes it boring; the second made me angry, as it pushed its main character farther and farther along a more and more zigzaggy path, and never offered any explanation for the character who most required one: Martin the tunnel-builder and sneak-tenant. The story should be redone by someone, some day. | 0 |
train_17397 | This film comes as the ultimate disappointment in Tsai Ming-Liang for me. It oozes laziness from its every frame. So I'm not going to analyse it thoroughly either. But some observations:1. If the premise is drought, why we get to see city landscapes with blooming green trees? I wonder if that was supposed to mean something in the metaphorical context of the film (in which thirst notifies the craving for intimacy, and watermelon the trivial substitute, sex). Or it is only a matter of lousy film-making, not giving a damn about being coherent.2. We don't get to know what had happened to the porn actress, why she is unconscious or, presumably, dead. It seems a question of no importance as long as the message of supreme alienation is successfully (=bombastically) delivered, but in retrospect, her inert body proves to be a cheap dramaturgical gimmick, a pretext just as gratuitous and exploitative as the activity it is employed in.3. Nothing is expressed in this movie that Antonioni hadn't expressed better 40 years ago and without needlessly humiliating his actors.4. The musical numbers (recycled from 'The Hole') felt like a secondary-schooler's idea of artistic counterpointing, executed on that very secondary-school level of skill. If that was the point, the point sucked. | 0 |
train_16686 | My commentary has nothing to do with the political sentiments found in the film. In fact, they're quite congruent with mine. What gets me is the fact that in terms of a movie, it is stupid and devoid of any semblance of story, motive or dialogue. Maybe someone should tell Neal that substituting lyrics of songs which are failing to inspire anyone outside of a dwindling audience isn't the same thing as creating characters who are motivated to speak because of events created by the writer or director. A silly narrative remains as such despite the iconic legacy of Neal Young. The most childish scene is the one where the devil dances his way into a bar, slips a tonic to an unsuspecting hero, who then finds his way onto the dance floor to mouth the words to Young song to the heroine, who is unaware of what's taken place. Somehow these two dream up a scheme where they will go up the West Coast in search of????? Sorry Neal, stick with music and leave film making to Steven Stills. | 0 |
train_4546 | This movie will go down down in history as one of the greats, right along side of Citizen Kane, Casablanca, and On The Waterfront. Someone please convince Leno to do a sequel! Leno and Morita are a comedy duo, the likes of which haven't been seen since Abbot and Costello. The evil that emanates from Chris Sarandon, Tom Noonan, and Randall "Tex" Cobb will give you the chills. Dingman's character as the buffoonish oaf hearkens back to the days of Shakespeare's comedies. And the climax. My goodness, the climax. I won't ruin it for you, but it makes the explosion of the Death Star pale in comparison. If you can track down this hard-to-find gem, do yourself and your family a favor and buy it immediately. I'm still holding out hope for a special edition DVD one of these days. | 1 |
train_9045 | There is a bit of trivia which should be pointed out about a scene early in the movie where Homer watches the attempt of December 6, 1957 (at least that was the video used on the TV he was watching) which showed the Vangard launch attempt, which failed.He is next shown reading or dictating a letter to Dr. Von Braun offering condolences about the failure.Von Braun was at Marshall space flight center in Huntsville working for the Army. The Vanguard project was by the early Nasa team which was at what soon became Goddard Space flight center.The army rushed the Jupiter-C, which was essentially a US made V2 technology, but worked to launch a satellite in response to Russia's success with Sputnik.This error may have actually been made by Homer, because of the notoriety of Von Braun, but his team didn't have their attempt fail. In fact the underlying Redstone was flying from 52 and was the first US man rated booster, used for Shepard's sub orbital flight, as well as Grissom's.This is why this sort of movie is so good, as it hopefully will inspire people to read up and spot these bits of trivia, and in the process see what has been done, and be inspired to do more. | 1 |
train_7619 | Intriguing. Exciting. Dramatic. Explosive. Complex. Epic. Words that only touch the tip of the iceberg in terms of the grand story that is LOST being told.From the acting down to the rare visual effects, LOST is the essential show on television for fans of science-fiction, fantasy, action, adventure, and lots and lots of mystery.Each cast member is so well chosen, and so good in their roles, that you either love them, or hate them, or downright wish them dead.The visual effects, when used (which is rare) are actually quite well done considering the usual production of shows. Be it the "smoke monster", to the polar bears, LOST is believable in terms of eye-candy.As far as story goes, nothing can compare to the vast complexity this show has made viewers like me endure. Beginning to End, continuity is virtually perfect, characters are developed, and the ever-evolving story slowly gives the answers to its questions so many crave.Overall, there is practically no flaw in LOST. It does for dramatic/sci-fi television what Arrested Development did for comedy: it has set the bar.I highly recommend LOST to those that are patient, intellectual, and love every moment of the ride, no matter how long it takes to reach the end.See this show. | 1 |
train_1936 | this independent film was one of the best films at the tall grass film festival that i have ever seen there i loved it there are so many things that was great about the film on top of all that the cast and crew that i had the opportunity to meet were absolutely phenomenal.I thought that Avi did a great job in his role. and Ricky Ullman was absolutely true to his role for a Disney actor i was amazed at his talent to be able to go from cheesy teen comedy to such an adult role with no problems the talent in the film was just amazing the cinematography was just great if you want to see an independent film this is one really that you should see.I think that Mr Gruver would have been so proud to have such a submission in his festival and his parents loved the movie so much when it won the audience favorite they went and saw it again. this truly was a great film it was dark and funny and sad and truly emotional it was just fabulous. I am honestly just so enthused by this film and i really don't want to spoil it for any one just see it and truly be amazed at it i think that these film makers really have what it takes to go places and I hope to see more work from them in the future. | 1 |
train_18386 | I would have left the movie halfway through if I hadn't been with people who liked it. The movie is based on real incidents, but it's so over the top it didn't feel real at all. I have some psychological background, hang out with a lot of psychotherapists, and have known seriously crazy people, so it's not that I think people like this don't exist. But in the film, the only characters who seemed consistently human were Augusten's father (Alec Baldwin) and the young Augusten (Jack Kaedin). (Although Evan Rachel Wood was an intriguing diversion - very sexy with a wicked sense of fun). There were a few amusing moments, but the overall tone of the movie was grim, bizarre, and nasty. What a waste of an outstanding cast! As I watched them go through their turns, I just felt like I was watching an acting class. This was brought home during the credits, when a couple of people were shown just sitting there, not acting, not talking. Those few moments were more entertaining than the previous 2 hours. | 0 |
train_1605 | "Moonstruck" is one of the best films ever. I own that film on DVD! The movie deals with a New York widow (Cher) who falls in love with her boyfriend's (Danny Aiello) angry brother (Nicholas Cage) who works at a bakery. I'm glad Cher won an Oscar for that movie. Nicholas Cage and Danny Aiello are great, too. The direction from Norman Jewison (who directed "Fiddler On The Roof") is fantastic. "Moonstruck" is an excellent movie for everyone to see and laugh. A must-see!10/10 stars! | 1 |
train_4229 | Don't waste time reading my review. Go out and see this astonishingly good episode, which may very well be the best Columbo ever written! Ruth Gordon is perfectly cast as the scheming yet charming mystery writer who murders her son-in-law to avenge his murder of her daughter. Columbo is his usual rumpled, befuddled and far-cleverer-than-he-seems self, and this particular installment features fantastic chemistry between Gordon and Falk. Ironically, this was not written by heralded creators Levinson or Link yet is possibly the densest, most thoroughly original and twist-laden Columbo plot ever. Utterly satisfying in nearly every department and overflowing with droll and witty dialogue and thinking. Truly unexpected and inventive climax tops all. 10/10...seek this one out on Netflix! | 1 |
train_21719 | I didn't even know this was originally a made-for-tv movie when I saw it, but I guessed it through the running time. It has the same washed-out colors, bland characters, and horrible synthesized music that I remember from the 80's, plus a 'social platform' that practically screams "Afterschool special". Anyhoo.Rona Jaffe's (thank you) Mazes and Monsters was made in the heyday of Dungeons & Dragons, a pen-and-paper RPG that took the hearts of millions of geeks around America. I count myself one of said geeks, tho I have never played D&D specifically I have dabbled in one of its brethren. M&M was also made in the heyday of D&D's major controversy-that it was so engrossing that people could lose touch with reality, be worshiping Satan without knowing, blah blah. I suppose it was a legitimate concern at one point, if extremely rare-but it dates this movie horrendously.We meet 4 young college students, who play the aptly named Mazes and Monsters, to socialize and have a little time away from mundane life. Except that M&M as presented is more boring than their mundane lives. None of the allure of gaming is presented here-and Jay Jay's request to take M&M into 'the real world' comes out of nowhere. It's just an excuse to make one of the characters go crazy out of nowhere also-though at that point we don't really care. Jay Jay, Robbie, Kate and Daniel are supposed to be different-but they're all rich WASPy prigs who have problems no one really has.But things just continue, getting worse in more ways than one. The low budget comes dreadfully clear, (I love the 'Entrance' sign and cardboard cutout to the forbidden caverns) Robbie/Pardu shows why he's not a warrior in the oafiest stabbing scene ever, and the payoff atop the 'Two Towers' is unintentionally hilarious. Tom Hanks' blubbering "Jay Jay, what am I doing here?" made me laugh for minutes on end. Definitely the low point in his career.Don't look at it as a cogent satire, just a laughable piece of 80's TV trash, and you'll still have a good time. That is, if you can stay awake. The majority is mostly boring, but it's all worthwhile for Pardu's breakdown at the end. At least Tom Hanks has gotten better. Not that he could go much worse from here. | 0 |
train_8215 | It's a strange thing to see a film where some scenes work rather weakly (if only in comparison to other films in its legacy), and others in a 'sub-plot' or supporting story are surprisingly provocative and strong. Sudden Impact is one of those cases, where Clint Eastwood as star/producer/director shows when he can be at his best, or at his lessor of times when dealing with a crime/mystery/detective story in his Dirty Harry fame. We get that 'make my day' line, and un-like in the first film where his 'do I feel lucky' speech was playful and cool the first time and the second time at the end tough as nails, here it's switched around. He gets into another shamble with the department, as usual, when he tries to fight crime 'his' way, in particular with a diner robbery (inspiration for Pulp Fiction?) and with a high speed pursuit with a senior citizen bus. He's told to 'take a vacation', and that's the last thing on his mind. This whole main plot isn't very convincing aside from the expectancy of the story and lines, which just adds to the frustration. But soon his story merges with the sub-plot that Eastwood develops from the start.Enter Sandra Locke's character, Jennifer Spencer, whom we soon learn after some (appropriately) mysterious scenes that she and her shy sister were victims of a cruel, unjust sexual assault (err, outright rape), and is sleekly, undercover-like, getting revenge. Her scenes and story are the strongest parts of the film, the most intense, and finally when it goes into Callahan's storyline (he's getting facts in the same small town she's in on a murder), the film finally finds a focus between Eastwood's classic form of clearly defined good vs. evil (though sometimes blurred, to be sure). Eastwood films the flashbacks, not to say too much about them, expertly, in a fresh, experimental style; the trademark Lalo Schifrin score is totally atmospheric in these scenes and in others. It almost seems like a couple of times an art-house sensibility has crept into Eastwood's firmly straightforward storytelling style, which helps make the film watchable.It's a shame, though, that in the end it goes more for the expectable (or maybe not expectable) points, and until the third act Callahan doesn't have much to do except his usual 'it's smith...Wesson...and me' shtick. However, with Locke he gets out of her a very good performance (more subtle and touching than the one in the Gauntlet) and an exciting climax at an amusement park. In a way I do and don't agree with Ebert's remark that it's like a 'music video' in Eastwood's style here. I admit there is comparisons with the simplicity of both, the directness, but the scenes where Eastwood does break form are superior to those of any music video. It's cheesy, it's hard-edged, it's not up to par with the first two 'Harry' pictures, but hey, there could be worse ways to spend a couple hours with the master of the .44. | 1 |
train_9148 | A much undervalued film that tells the story of a young musician caught in an ever-declining spiral of domestic violence.At times difficult to watch, while Morris Day is portrayed as the misogynist, Prince as the knight on (motorcycle) steed, he is still called upon to twice beat a woman as part of the screenplay. That he can do this and still emerge as a flawed but vindicated hero is credit to the writing. Prince is so free of ego in this film that not only does he portray himself as a narcissistic megalomaniac who beats women, but his most famous song is fictionalised as being written by his father and Wendy & Lisa. Even further, two of his compositions - Computer Blue (admittedly the album's weakest track) and Darling Nikki - are shown as being songs that kill off an audience. Perhaps the only concession to the Princely ego is a card that lists the (slightly shorter than Prince) Apollonia as 5'6.The nearly complete-amateur cast are mainly band members playing themselves (and reviewers who slate the actors on the terms that they've never appeared in other movies are completely missing the point), and do perfectly well under the direction. Morris Day gets most of the plaudits for his likable ham, though Jerome Benton must also get credit for bouncing off him well, particularly their stage act, which is hilarious. Day and Benton even go so far as to make an Abbott and Costello routine funny, which takes some doing.Lastly, there's Prince. While I admit to bias, I do actually think he's a pretty good actor in terms of being able to portray a low-key version of himself. Acting ISN'T his profession, this was a film made for entertainment, so anyone pointing out that the guy in the lead role isn't Robert DeNiro and thinking they're making a point is sadly deluded. I don't want this review to be a derisory attack of other people's comments, but I've even this film slated as having a low budget and being darkly lit. How would a film about domestic violence be shot, then? With full overhead spotlights and a CGI dinosaur walking into frame? The film acts almost as a perfect snapshot of the neon light and skinny tie era
until you remember that it was actually made in a world of curly perms and tinny synths, and this isn't some retro-recreation. Prince's best film with Oscar-winning music, it sees him at his zenith, and it's saddening to realise that, even though he would make some fine albums, he would never again capture this high. | 1 |
train_24093 | I consider this film one of the worst in the Nightmare series. It was so boring that I couldn't remember a thing 20 minutes after the film was over, it even tires me to write a review on it.Okay, #4 was a joke and Freddy was the joker. #5 tried to return to the roots of the series. It was darker and more atmospheric than Nightmare 4, which is a good thing, basically. They tried to shoot a horror film instead of a comedy. Unfortunately they forgot to add suspense and scares. Because of that Nightmare 5: The Dream Child is neither funny nor is it scary. What we actually get is a boring film with the usual bad actors (maybe with the exception of Lisa Wilcox).The plot (Freddy killing Lisa's friends by using the dreams of Lisa's unborn child) has a good base but it just isn't enough for 90 minutes of film. Sometimes the story gets very confusing (maybe because there isn't any) and you can't stop wondering what the filmmakers were aiming at. The screenplay must have had more holes than Swiss Cheese and the film therefore was very cheesy itself (let me say that I don't like cheese though, even if I am from Switzerland). Not even the special effects were as good as for example in part 4.Don't bother to rent/buy this film if not for completeness, it's quite a mess.My rating: 4/10 (get used to it, #6 is also a messy one...) | 0 |
train_12474 | And look how a true story, "... with a little help of it's friends..." : a welldone and touching script, a good directing and a surprising great acting from a bunch of "no-name" actors, especially from the 4-yr-old Jodelle Ferland, becomes a must seen movie. 9/10 | 1 |
train_15769 | Except for the acting of Meryl Streep, which is of note as always, I'd avoid this film because it has a dated "Movie of the Week" quality about it. But it is worth watching if you keep the several understories in mind: How a couple endures media scrutiny, and how the different are treated.Throughout the movie the issue is the credibility of the different. Australians are different than "us" (most of the rest of the world), so we (most of us) automatically come at it with an air of "oddness" about them. The couple involved is religious (different than most of culture) and Adventists (different) at that. So their lifestyle and mindset are suspect to begin with. Dingos are different animals than other dogs, so again we're faced with oddness questions. The real story, then, is how society (and the world) treats the different, those who have different accents, different beliefs, than we do and how we treat what they say as suspect.It's difficult to hear the phrase "A dingo took my baby!" without laughing and there are humorous posts, sadly, all over the web about it. But in the years that followed the story and the movie it has been discovered (as you'll find in web searches) that much larger children have been stalked by dingos. Research by experts in dingos have shown that it was not only possible but most probable that the baby was taken by dingos (maybe a pair), extracted expertly from the clothing and eaten within moments without a trace.Yet what is left behind is the question of why people defended dingos when they were found to be endangering children rather than killing the dingo to save the children, why because a woman's affect (expression) is so cold she is assumed to be guilty, and on and on.Haunting questions, with or without the film. | 0 |
train_2455 | It's a rather good movie, but too Americanised in it's predictability. Change the Kung Fu for football and the Turkish Family for a Pakistani one, and you get to watch Bend It Like Beckham (2002) almost scene for scene. A nice feature the serves as the backbone of the movie is the progression of fights with the mysterious ninja under the highway, beginning with miserable losses and slowly progressing until the last fight is a win against oneself, as the Kung Fu master stressed several times. On a different level, the Danish life is revealed quite different than the image it has by outsiders: the non indigenous immigrants that make a large proportion (actually, the majority) of the Danish citizenry, the graffiti in the Copenhagen suburbs, the taunting of the immigrant girl in the begging of the movie. All portray a different picture than one has in mind when one hears the word Denmark. | 1 |
train_14160 | EXTREMITIES Aspect ratio: 1.85:1Sound format: MonoA woman turns the tables on a would-be rapist when he mounts an assault in her home, and is forced to decide whether to kill him or inform the police, in which case he could be released and attack her again.Exploitation fans who might be expecting another rough 'n' ready rape fantasy in the style of DAY OF THE WOMAN (1978) will almost certainly be disappointed by EXTREMITIES. True, Farrah Fawcett's character is subjected to two uncomfortably prolonged assaults before gaining the upper hand on her attacker (a suitably slimy James Russo), but scriptwriter William Mastrosimone and director Robert M. Young take these unpleasant scenes only so far before unveiling the dilemma which informs the moral core of this production. Would their final solution hold up in a court of law? Maybe...Based on a stage play which reportedly left its actors battered and bruised after every performance, the film makes no attempt to open up the narrative and relies instead on a confined setting for the main action. Acing and technical credits are fine, though Fawcett's overly subdued performance won't play effectively to viewers who might be relying on her to provide an outlet for their outraged indignation. | 0 |
train_5986 | This film is the most cult movie on metal there is. Premise: A kid gets a hold of the final recording of his favorite artist Sammy Curr who recently dies in a hotel fire. He plays it backwards and summons him back from the dead to get revenge in the name of heavy metal on those b**tardly jocks who torment him. Any fan of true metal will enjoy this movie, and if you are a metal head being tormented by jocks, play a Sammy Curr album backwards.........no wait he is fictitious, well get a hold of this movie and watch it with your fist in the air, your head banging, and the volume at 11! | 1 |
train_4525 | Buster Keaton was finding his feature length voice in "Three Ages." There are some fine sequences, but it doesn't quite hang together. The "chariot race" in "Three Ages" is hilarious. Included are 2 shorts, one of which, "The Goat," is excellent. | 1 |
train_19714 | Nahhh! Leila (Grace Mills) is a teenager turned on to Satan (and LSD) by her archaeologist fiancé Richard. There's a neighborhood hippie demon cult hanging out at the local decrepit ancient castle, where Leila and Richard drink blood, drop drugs, join in sex orgies, dance to lame psychedelic rock and participate in black mass ceremonies where the guys wear pants, masks and capes and the women don't wear anything at all. Unfortunately, these kind of extracurricular activities have left Leila open to demonic possession from the dreaded "spirit of evil." Leila also comes from a screwed up family, which doesn't help either. Her older brother John is a recluse who seems to be in love with her. Her mother Patricia (Maria Perschy) is depressed because she thinks she was responsible for the father's death. To top it off, her sister (Maria Kosti) is a slutty semi pro golfer named (gasp!) Debbie Gibson. There's plenty of hired help around also to waste more time. Two maids (a young one who takes her clothes off a lot and an old one who spies on everyone), plus Udo (Luis Induni), a bald voyeuristic handyman who spies on Leila changing clothes, takes nude pictures of her and sneaks into the pool house to take a sniff of her freshly used bathing suit. Oh yeah and Borg, the pet German Shepherd.Paul Naschy is Father Adrian Dunning, the doubting priest (zzzzz) who starts snooping around after John and Richard both have their heads twisted around backwards. Leila tells him "They say I am perverse and I'm going to prove it is true!" During her birthday party, she tells her guests "You make me sick! I hate you all!" and when mom suggests having a doctor come over she she screeches "I don't want to see that fat ass!" Debbie suggests they commit Leila to a "sanitory," but Leila runs off and joins the cult again. She is rescued (again) and brought back home (for the third time).By this point in the movie, there's only about ten minutes left to go and all we've basically seen is some very boring scenes of characters talking and whining about how terrible and f-ed up their lives are and how Leila is acting weird. It's almost as agonizing to sit through as an Andy Milligan movie, minus the gore and laughs. But finally during the last few minutes we get the movie the title implies - an EXORCIST-like possession flick. Unfortunately, the best part of it are the contact lenses Leila gets to wear. Some cheap time-lapse slashes appear on her arms, legs and face, she gets scabby lips and her eyes take on the appearance of blue and white marbles. She begins reeking of rotted flesh, spits up some clear gunk, starts speaking in her dead dad's voice, sneaks into her mom's bedroom, slaps her around a bit and calls her a "filthy bitch of a whore." In comes Father Adrian, who now finally believes she is indeed possessed, fends off her attempts at seduction, hallucinates frogs and eels are in the kitchen and douses Leila with holy water. Doors open and close, a mirror breaks, there's sudden thunder and her bed rises up off the floor. After she tackles Dunning and the two roll down the stairs, the spirit is out of her and into - guess who? Why, Borg the family pooch! The demon dog then turns on Adrian and chews him up a little before he impales it on a fire poker. Then we get one of the most irritating final shots ever committed to film. It's Leila on the floor going from her hideous appearance back to her normal sexy self. But then there's ANOTHER time-lapse effect that sort of seems to suggest that the demon has possibly reentered her body. It's so badly done, you really have no clue what to make of it, which is the final slap in the face to anyone who has just realized they've wasted an hour and a half on this worthless POS.Screw the contacts, 1 out of 10 it is. | 0 |
train_23589 | Fairly good movie, but not a true story.Rubin "Hurricane" Carter was a notorius liar, a murder and was never found not guilty. New Jersey State just didn't go for it a third time as 20 years had gone. Carter got an offer in 1976: "Pass a lie test and go free". He didn't take it. This film should never have been made, but money talks. A lot of people have unjustly spend their lives in prison and undoubtedly more blacks than white. Why choose a fake story?Jens | 0 |
train_11541 | Matthau and Lemmon are at their very best in this one - everyone else in the movie are also great. The Dialogue is excellent and very, very witty - and the scene where Lemmon's character attempts to clear out his sinuses in a restaurant have me rolling on the floor with laughter every time I see it. Anyone who happened to see the not so great sequel should not be turned away from the original. I recommend this wonderful movie to everyone - I just love it. And the fact the Jack Lemmon plays his character so straight forward with tragic overtones only adds to the hilariousness in my opinion. These two great guys made a string of movies together, but this one is the best - no doubt. | 1 |
train_18756 | Hmm
I agree with the reviewer who said that "strange people with generous tastes have been reviewing this film". I thought the film was intriguing enough to watch it. I think that was primarily because of Marsden and Speedman - not the plot.The bottom line is that this film is mildly psychologically tantalizing on the one hand and profoundly homophobic on the other. Thumbs up on the former and triple thumbs down on the latter. I'm not sure if the film is intended to promote dialogue or to spread fear and propaganda.I thought the acting was mediocre. A lot of conversation that was about 90 degrees askew of reality. I kept wanting to derive some meaning from the plot, but it's ultimately just a conversation with a mad man (Speedman). I feel mildly sorry for him (Speedman) because of his loss, but not really. His loss is no greater and certainly is less than losses suffered every day around the world by more significant causes.Does the film expose naiveté about HIV/AIDS? Yes: That of the intended audience. Is HIV a dark, mysterious, evil killer? What about it's victims? The answer to both questions is NO. Neither HIV nor its victims have any more or less malevolent intent than lupus, multiple sclerosis, TB, hepatitis, CANCER, or their victims, FOR GOD'S SAKE. Just because a disease is communicable does not make it EITHER deliberate OR negligent - or evil - it just IS.Does this excuse ignorance or fool-hardy risk taking? - NO. Should all people practice safe sex? - YES. Will safe sex save the world? - NO. Is safe sex realistic in all instances of love and lust between passionate and emotional human beings? OF COURSE NOT. What kind of a world would we live in if everyone followed the rules, no one ever took risks, and sex was never spontaneous and passionate??? Am I ignoring that the film deals specifically with gay sex? YES. HIV is spread by sharing blood or bodily fluids between infected and non-infected individuals. Sex is not necessary for transmission, gay or otherwise.I'm always disturbed by willful violence of one person upon another. I actually thought the film did do a good job of portraying the absurdity of Tom's violent abduction, captivity, and intent towards Dan, and this kind of insane violence does occur every day.Stream of consciousness notes from the film: Tom is crazy.Why doesn't Dan ask "why" do you feel this way, rather than "what are you doing"? Implication: men who have sex with men get "AIDS" Implication: HIV = AIDS Where was Tom's responsibility in the sex act? Why was it Dan's responsibility to use the condom? "maybe you slipped it off before you stuck it in
" What are we talking about here? Was one of the parties unconscious? "Maybe she didn't want to hear the truth" are you kidding me "She's up in heaven and so unbelievably hurt about what she now knows about me"
right
Is Dan's life over if he has HIV? Certainly NOT! Is this why the whole world is so homophobic???? They think gay men are the cause of HIV, that they will give it to the rest of the world, and we will all die
are you kidding me??? Are people really stupid enough to think that homosexuality is the cause... is the problem??? Do we feel that way about the victims of tuberculosis? of malaria? I can see that Tom is hurt because of his wife's death, and he blames it on AIDS, but seriously
who's at fault here? The victim or the virus? Are illnesses really the responsibility of the ill? (presuming they did not seek and did not seek to spread the disease).Sure, safe sex is essential to a safe life, but so is not-driving, not-flying, not-leaving the house, not-living. Do we really want to blame the disease on the victims? Would safe sex between Tom and Dan have prevented Tom's wife's ultimate demise? Perhaps, but not Dan's sole responsibility.Tom is crazy. Did I mention that.Tom to Dan: "maybe you get what you deserve"
COME ON! 24 Days: Violent, naïve, and homophobic.Am I overreacting? Perhaps. But I think this film points a judging finger at gay men for their reckless and malevolent intent towards a "straight world" by practicing unsafe sex, when the rate of homosexuals practicing safe sex is proportionately equivalent or better than that of heterosexuals. We all need to wake up and get serious about HIV/AIDS. HIV is killing hundreds of thousands of STRAIGHT Africans every year. | 0 |
train_14051 | The Ladies Man is a funny movie. There's not much thought behind it, but what do you expect from an SNL movie? It's actually better than most SNL movies (i.e. Superstar or A Night At The Roxbury) Tim Meadows and Will Ferrell were both very funny. Chris Parnell was also funny in his short scene (one of the funnier ones in the movie). Other than that, the rest of the cast is average and is just there to support Meadows. I've definitely seen funnier movies, but I've seen dumber ones too. Again, it's not exactly a deep movie, but it's good for a few laughs. It was funnier as a skit though. But still, if you're looking for a pretty funny movie, I'd recommend this one. Just don't think about it too much, or you'll hate it.Rating: 6/10 | 0 |
train_18518 | I find it sad that Christians (and I am one) feel that we must make movies like "Left Behind." We have much better stories to tell that don't have to be so preachy. I was very disappointed with this film. As an aspiring filmmaker who believes in Christ, I see this film as the perfect example for what I am not going to do with my career in film. | 0 |
train_7758 | An overblown melodrama typical of its period (mid-1950s) and appropriate matinée food. Rock Hudson, the hulk everyone always falls in love with, plays his usual stereotype role, but whereas in Giant, made the same year, when his material and co-stars (Taylor & Dean) were above average, in this movie he is just not good enough to raise the calibre beyond a mushy tale of how difficult it is to be both rich and happy. The self-destructive brother and sister (Robert Stack, reeling his way through the film in a drunken stupor, and Dorothy Malone, playing a vampish poor little rich girl totally over the top) end up the losers and Hudson gets Bacall - who is rather wooden in this part which does not have enough character or wit to get her going. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, the good end happily and the bad unhappily, that is the meaning of fiction. However, I was interested to read that the film is based on a true story which vindicated the plot. Like other films of the period, homosexuality is disguised in heterosexual terms. Maybe the film could be remade: Stack's character would ring truer if he was hiding homosexual feelings for Mitch by marrying. Todd Haynes's Far From Heaven greatly improved on All That Heaven Allows , also directed by Sirk. Perhaps Haynes could remake Written on the Wind and give us a truly memorable film. | 1 |
train_10995 | I've seen this movie at theater when it first came out some years ago and really liked it a lot. But i still wanted to see it again this year to check if it is still good compared to movies coming out now, and i wan tell it's one the best movies i've ever seen in my life !!!!!!!!!!!!! What you need to know is that you don't have to miss any minute of this movie, if you don't completely follow the action you will get lost and you will not understand the end. The end is what makes this movie so good, you can't expect it.Congratulations to the Producer ! | 1 |
train_16745 | This movie was based on actual fact? I sincerely hope not!We get to see what appears to be numerous armed cops empty an equal amount of guns at 2 guys who only got armored torso's. That's a great idea; aim for the armor!...excuse me, but how about those big fat unmissable heads or their legs for crying out loud. Or were there invisible tanks protecting them? were they from Crypton?Did i miss something here?This movie started out decent enough but after 20 minutes of shoot-out it really takes a turn to boringlane.And that documentary style didn't work for me either, but thats just something one finds likable or not.Highly unbelievable stuff which makes it hard to see it through 'til the end.3/10 for the fine editing. | 0 |
train_13554 | Rural family drama--with perhaps a nod to "Ordinary People"--concerns a young boy who withdraws into himself after fatally wounding his older brother in a shooting mishap. Despite downbeat subject matter (given mercilessly glum treatment by director Christopher Cain), there are some dynamics in this sad story worth exploring. Unfortunately, the isolated farming atmosphere and the reluctance of the adult characters to take charge of the situation render the film a stultifying experience. What with Robert Duvall, Glenn Close, and Wilford Brimley in the cast, the movie is nearly a small-scaled reunion of "The Natural". Too bad this project didn't get the necessary talent behind the camera to really eke out a gripping, memorable picture. *1/2 from **** | 0 |
train_14684 | This movie is a loose collection of unintelligible analogies and ill conceived plot devices.Movie history: The director of this film was a pervert who drove around town filming random women. When his wife discovered the film reels, he was forced to quickly contrive a story. He claimed he was making a movie called "The brain that wouldn't die." Eventually, his wife demanded that he show her his "so called movie." That night he quickly filmed some extra scenes with a friend and "The Brain that wouldn't Die" was born.I hate this movie! Plot Synopsis: The main character's fiancé is killed in a horrible car accident(that he caused by ignoring the clearly posted road signs). He grabs her head from the wreckage and reanimates it. After reanimating the head, he goes and picks up a bunch of hookers. That is pretty much what happens for the rest of the movie. At the end, he fights and is killed by a monster that lives in the closet. The monster appears with little to no explanation. However, the monster saves a hooker and I assume that they live happily ever after.Side notes: The end credit screen claims that the movie is called "The Head that wouldn't Die".I hate this movie! | 0 |
train_5367 | This movie is one of the most Underrated movie of its time. When watching this movie , your filled with action, and when somethings not really happing , the humour is un matched. Brilliant writing for a movie that was made to give us a bloody mix , of a game show where criminals are the contestants, and a near future where the general public all have a thirst for blood.Also Arnold Doesn't let us down with some of his best one liners.I don't want to spoil anything for you ,but i will tell you when Arnold gives his "I'll be back line" He gets the best response of them all in this movie. Hope you enjoy this gem as much as i did. | 1 |
train_12675 | I watched Cabin by the Lake this afternoon on USA. Considering this movie was made for TV is was interesting enough to watch the sequel. So, I tune in for the airing this evening and was extremely disappointed. I knew I wouldn't like the movie, but I was not expecting to be perplexed by the use of DV (digital video). The movie would have been tolerable if it wasn't for these juxtaposed digital shots that seemed to come from nowhere. I expected the plot line to be tied in with these shots, but there seemed to be no logical explanation. (WARNING: THE FOLLOWING MAYBE A SPOILER!!!!) The open ending in Cabin by the Lake was acceptable, but the open ending on the sequel is ridiculous. I can only foresee Return of Return to The Cabin by the Lake being watch able is if the movie was shown up against nothing, but infomercials at 4 o'clock in the morning. | 0 |
train_24688 | While I can't deny that his movies are often entertaining, I have always personally felt that Martin Scorsese is just a little overrated in his abilities. His use of flashy stylistics in a good number of his movies seems to scream "Look at me, aren't I an imaginative director?". His best film that I have seen is the one with the least added flourishes, the superlative "Raging Bull".For this remake it appears it was business as usual, though. The dull film stock to convey a 1950's setting was so bland as to be a distraction in itself. The melodramatic close-ups combined with the sub-par imitation of the classic "Psycho" score are more likely to provoke smirks of derision than a sense of atmospheric terror. The score for "Psycho" was brilliantly unnerving, this 'homage' just sounds shrill and annoying. Even the cast, who can be decent at times, deliver histrionic performances that just scream 'caricature'; the notable exception to this being an intelligent turn by Lewis as the impressionable teenage daughter of the Bowden family.The worst acting offender here is surprisingly De Niro. Sure, he looks suitably menacing but as soon as he opens his mouth that aura just drains away. Now I'm no expert on American accents, me originally coming from near Manchester in England an' all, but surely he could've come up with a more convincing Southern drawl than that? Being the gifted physical actor he is, he almost overcomes this fatal flaw, but not quite. It was disconcerting for me, as a De Niro fan, to be wishing he was off screen, rather than rapt at his performance.(POSSIBLE SPOILERS.)The over-the-top style of the whole movie extends to the ridiculously overblown finale. When will Scorsese learn that underplaying the situation can sometimes build tension just as effectively as giving the viewer a visual and sonic bombardment? I also thought that he was too respected a reputation to resort to the 'killer-not-dead-yet' cheap trick that less talented individuals might employ.All in all, a thoroughly ridiculous 'thriller'. Scorsese and De Niro have done MUCH better work together. | 0 |
train_10744 | The events of September 11 2001 do not need extra human interest in the shape of following the training of the rookie fireman or the progress of the two French brothers. In my view it would have been better to leave this out. I think the directors tried too hard, perhaps they felt that the events of the day needed a story as a backdrop. The comment of one of a policemen - "this aint f***ing Disneyworld" is apt.Nevertheless it is compelling viewing for the depiction of the events. The filmakers were in all the right places at the right times, no other footage from the day matches what they shot. | 1 |
train_19843 | Ever heard of a taiwanese horror movie? Or any taiwanese movie? Propably for a reason. This one was a really boring one, even though it has black magic including withered baby bodies and people exploding from the inside with thousands of eels.Having read other peoples thoughts, I was looking forward for some violence and gore, but there's not much at all. Some blood puking and other lame stuff, if you are waiting for graphic gore or any gruesome effects you will be disappointed. They clearly didn't use the eel exploding and other things to their maximum potent.Pretty much nothing good about this movie; a single character that wasn't completely bland and a few OK black magic spells, like the eel one. The plot was confusing and boring. The characters were thin and annoying, including the main character. The horror aspect didn't work at all, the most horrifying thing was an albino girl (not that scary really). This is the worst Asian horror movie I have ever seen. | 0 |
train_10568 | I loved this film, seen this evening on a movie theatre big screen! The audience laughed out loud at some very interesting things, and the fast pace was most enjoyable.I do, as a singer and musical director, question one section of Roby Keeler's vocal in "By a Waterfall." The key modulated, and she was suddenly singing much lower, in a very mellow voice that bore no resemblance to the somewhat tin-like higher twitter voice she used in all her other vocals.Does anyone know if this was overdubbed by another singer? It sounds it to me. I would love to know.Thanks so much. | 1 |
train_19355 | Why is it that a woman cannot be a strong character in a movie without sleeping with the leading man? The campaign manager in this movie dreams of leading Tom Sellick to the White House. It's all she can think about. So, why on earth must she have had an affair with him? It added nothing to the plot and served only to demean successful women. The only value of that tidbit was the cute "we've all slept with your husband" scene. Also, couldn't the people who made this movie have watched the national conventions they were spoofing? Airing between the two major political conventions only served to highlight their total ignorance of the nomination and selection process. | 0 |
train_16664 | What is left of Planet Earth is populated by a few poor and starving rag-tag survivors. They must eat bugs and insects, or whatever, after a poison war, or something, has nearly wiped out all human civilization. In these dark times, one of the few people on Earth still able to live in comfort, we will call him the All Knowing Big Boss, has a great quest to prevent some secret spore seeds from being released into the air. It seems that the All Knowing Big Boss is the last person on Earth that knows that these spores even exist. The spores are located far away from any living soul, and they are highly protected by many layers of deadly defense systems. The All Knowing Big Boss wants the secret spores to remain in their secret protected containers. So, he makes a plan to send in a macho action team to remove the spore containers from all of the protective systems and secret location. Sending people to the location of secret spores makes them no longer a secret. Sending people to disable all of the protective systems makes it possible for the spores to be easily released into the air. How about letting sleeping dogs lie?! The one pleasant feature of ENCRYPT is the radiant and elegant Vivian Wu. As the unremarkable macho action team members drop off with mechanically paced predictable timing, engaging Vivian Wu's charm makes acceptable the plot idea of her old employer wanting her so much. She is an object of love, an object of desire -- a very believable concept!Fans of Vivian Wu may want to check out an outstanding B-movie she is in from a couple years back called DINNER RUSH. DINNER RUSH is highly recommended. ENCRYPT is not. | 0 |
train_10443 | Richard Linklater's beautifully directed mixture of youthful romance and Paris travelogue is one of the 90's best thinking person's romantic movies. Julie Delpy turns in one of the decade's most engaging performances as the Parisian lass who spends a day with stranger-on-a-train Ethan Hawke. The dialogue (and there is oodles of it) is sometimes meandering and overly precious, but this portrait of two young wannabe-lovers making a romantic, intellectual, and spiritual connection to one another is full of wonderfully amusing, touching and insightful moments. | 1 |
train_9715 | Here's the skinny, it seems that this is much older then I thought it was. But it's still cool. The bike mechs are cool and the story works for the most part. There are some character issues that I hope work themselves out by part 2 and my biggest complaint of all that it seems to be a MACROSS knock off. Not just the animation style but several character designs. For example all the girls in this movie look like LYN MINMAY of MACROSS. The mechs look similar to MACROSS as well as the other characters. This is really not made for little kids, it has graphic violence, nudity and graphic sexual content. So to make a long story short I give this cool MACROSS knock-off 7 STARS. | 1 |
train_10051 | Family problems abound in real life and that is what this movie is about. Love can hold the members together through out the ordeals and trials and that is what this movie is about. One man, Daddy, has the maturity and fortitude to sustain the family in the face of adversity. The kids grow up,one all be it, in the hard way, to realize that no matter how old they or a parent is, the parent still loves their children and are willing to provide them a cushion when they fall. ALL the actors portraying their characters did outstanding performances. Yes, I shed a tear along the way knowing I had had similar experiences both as a young adult and later as a parent. This true to life is one which every young adult, and parent, would do well to see, although some will not realize it until they too are parents. A must see for those who care about their families. | 1 |
train_2710 | This is not my favorite WIP ("Women in Prison"), but it is one of the most famous films in the sub-genre. It is was produced by Roger Corman, who at this point had already produced a few WIPs. It is obvious that the film tries to play with the established formula. The movie takes place in an USA prison, not in a "banana republic" like most WIP films. I'm not sure if that was a wise move, but it is an acceptable change of pace. Writer-director Demme really gets into his job, always digging for new ways to present a familiar scenario. In fact, he is a little too ambitious for his own good. The filmmaker creates a few surreal dream sequences that are borderline pretentious but it is fun to see how hard he tries to put this film above your average chicks-in-chains flick. But do not worry, Demme still operates within the parameters of the sub-genre. There is plenty of nudity and violence, something that will satisfy hardcore fans. The film is a little slow, but it is very entertaining. The cast is good. Roberta Collins is a WIP veteran, so she does not need an introduction, and Barbara Steel is a hoot as the wheelchair-bound crazy warden. Pam Grier is sorely missed, though. | 1 |
train_1141 | Anyone who doesn't laugh all through this movie has been embalmed. I have watched it at least twenty times and I still get tears in my eyes at many of the scenes. Sally Field is absolutely perfect as Celest Talbert, a fading soap star whose supporting cast is trying to get her replaced in hopes that their own star will rise. Fields, at 45, still has that wonderful and beautiful pixie quality and a perfect figure that belies her having had three children. I'm biased, I'm in love with her.The cast of "Soapdish" is filled with stars who perform their roles to perfection. Kevin Kline is flawless, as are Robert Downey Jr., an ingénue Elizabeth Shue, Whoopi Goldberg, Teri Hatcher in one of her early roles, Carrie Fisher as the oversexed casting director who auditions an actor for a small part as a waiter without his shirt on. Kathy Najimy is wonderful as the hapless costume designer, and best of all, Cathy Moriarty as Nurse Nan who leads the plot to get Fields character removed from the show is hilarious.This movie should have won Oscars for best comedy, best leading lady in a comedy, best leading man in a comedy and myriad other bests, including writing, directing and supporting actors and actresses. Get the DVD so you can watch it over and over for the next twenty five years. You will still be laughing at it when the disc wears out. | 1 |
train_13009 | This film is about British prisoners of war from the World War II escaping from a camp in Germany.I find "The Wooden Horse" disappointingly boring. The subject could have been thrilling, suspenseful and adrenaline fuelled, but "The Wooden Horse" is told in a very plain way. It's a collection of plain and poorly told events, with no suspension and thrill. The first half plainly tells how the prisoners of war dug a tunnel, but the events are so plain, with not enough blunders and close shaves to make me on edge. The latter half of the film is even worse, they are just moving from one place to another without any cat and mouse chase. And could the characters talk a bit less and have more action in an action film! I am disappointed by "The Wooden Horse", it wasted the potential to be a great film. | 0 |
train_24371 | Gregory Peck's acting was excellent, as one would expect, and the cinematography quite stunning even when playing directly into some melodramatic "moment." But, the rest of the film was overacted and hard to watch, for me anyway. I tried to like it, but had to fast-forward through the last thirty minutes or so. I feel I wasted a couple of good hours. Had it not been for Gregory Peck, I wouldn't have lasted fifteen minutes. 4/10. | 0 |
train_17838 | Elvis Presley plays a "half-breed" Native American ("Indian") who has to defend his reservation from nasty business tycoons. Everyone likes to get drunk, fight, and make children. Fighting, wrestling, and "punching out" each other replace the stereotypical hand-raised expression "How"?Although he does have make-up on, it's obvious Elvis is healthier than he appeared in prior films; possibly, he was getting ready for his famous "comeback". It couldn't have been because this movie's script was anything to get excited about. Joan Blondell trying to seduce Elvis, and Burgess Meredith in "war paint", should be ashamed.The best song is "Stay Away" (actually, "Green Sleeves" with different lyrics). The most embarrassing song is Elvis' love song to the bull "Dominic". There are some surreal scenes, but it never becomes trippy enough to succeed in that genre; though, "Stay Away, Joe" might provide some laughs if you're in the right "mood".Otherwise, stay away. ** Stay Away, Joe (1968) Peter Tewksbury ~ Elvis Presley, Burgess Meredith, Joan Blondell | 0 |
train_18707 | This movie commits what I would call an emotional rape on the viewer. The movie supposedly caused quite a stir among the critics in Cannes, but for me the final scene was just a pathetic attempt for a newbie director to get himself noticed. Hardly a voice in the discussion on the issue of violence, drug abuse or juvenile delinquency (or any other issue, for that matter).The main character's metamorphosis from good, but troubled boy to the vicious rapist is virtually nonexistent, whereas the rape scene (being an over-dragged, exaggerated version of the rape scene from "A clockwork orange") is unbearable and I refuse to comment on its aesthetic values. There are some things an artist should not do to try and achieve his/her goal. At least in my opinion.To wrap it up: shockingly brutal, revolting and NOT WORTH YOUR TIME. See "A clockwork orange" or "Le pianiste" instead. | 0 |
train_11341 | This may just be the most nostalgic journey back in time & through time to when one's childhood starts a journey to reminiscences back & forth onwards & upwards,forwards & backwards,up & down & all around.The boy Jimmy,H.R. Puffinstuff,Dr.Blinky,Cling & Clang,Ludicrous Lion,& even the evil Witchie Poo too through & through. The latter day inspirations of Lidsville,"The Brady Kids Saturday Morning Preview Special" Sigmund & the Sea Monsters,and Land of the lost both the new & old are what this very show bridged the gap to as well as The Donny & Marie Show,The Brady Bunch Variety Hour a.k.a. Brady Bunch Hour & Even The Paul Lynde Halloween Special. Maybe even other things in between & Beyond the Buck just keeps on moving on & on & even beyond expectations & as well as unexpected bounds.Now as we get updated in March of '06 we know that Jack Wild's gone & so now it make's it even more symbolic for us to really get nostalgic.Including now in August of '06 both when Jack Wild guest stars as himself on Sigmund and The Sea Monsters as well as when on a latter episode H.R.Puffinstuff does too and to recall all of the other nostalgic journeys of all the Syd & Marty Kroft Characters as well including The H.R.Puffinstuff Goodtime Club;The Donny and Marie Show;The Brady Bunch Variety Hour a.k.a. The Brady Bunch Hour;etc. Truthfully,Stephen "Steve" G. Baer a.k.a. "Ste" of Framingham,Ma.USA. | 1 |
train_12802 | I really wanted to like this movie. I absolutely love kenny hotz, and spenny rice has a charming side to him. Not that I like spenny at all. Spenny ruins this movie. He should of let kenny and his hot girlfriend pitch the movie.Anyways, it's pretty boring aside from a scene with Roger Ebert in it. There really isn't too many celebrities in this movie, and most don't seem to say more than one line. Overall this movie was disappointing. I would only suggest watching it if you got it with the season 1 DVD of kenny vs spenny (it comes for free on the 3rd disc). Regardless of this production, I am still very excited to check out The Papel Chase. | 0 |
train_6918 | A very enjoyable film that features characters who do bad things and who let emotions like anger and a desire for vengeance bubble over. The cast is very good, there's plenty of action, and Stewart gets the girl and his revenge (with a twist) in the end. I've seen this film several times, and always watch when it's on AMC or cable. Highly recommended... | 1 |
train_15049 | my friend bought the movie for 5 (its is not even 1 cent worth), because they wrote it was like American pie. but we would soon find out that there is a long way from American pie to that piece of crap. it is not even a comedy, its more like a really really really bad documentary. not only the story is bad, the picture and sound also sucks to. they put in some alcohol, chicks, dwarfs and drunken teens. and the result is a disaster. if you see this movie don't buy it, rather spend your money on something else, and better. if you are gonna torture yourself, then don't invite your friend/s, unless you hate really much and you want to get rid of them. | 0 |
train_2797 | 10/10 for this film.i'm a british india doctor, currently in india. the word Beckham put me off, 'cos i'm a die hard Liverpool fan, and personally think that Owen is really cool. Since Liverpool and Man Utd are rivals, i was DEAD sure that i wouldn't watch the film.But then i was in delhi to meet some friends, and i had an early morning flight, so i thought, "what the heck, let's bide time by watching this film", 'cos it was a late night show.What a moron i was. I should've seen this film the day it was released. I guess using Beckham's name was to draw audience attraction (which had back-fired in my case!!!), but then i really can't think of a better title for the film.And Nagra, Knightley (drop dead gorgeous), and Rhys-Myers did a superb job.If you hate football, dislike Manchester United (or England for that matter), then this is DEFINATELY the film for you. In fact, i'm just 29 yrs old, a psychiatrist by profession, but a kid at heart. This film has knocked "Star Wars" off my no.1 position.Surprisingly, there aren't very many comments on this film by indian-brits like me. I wonder why?10/10 for this film. | 1 |
train_11658 | First animated feature film from Ireland is also one of the best animated films I've ever seen. Its a real warts and all story that is unlike any of the other Oscar nominees and any other film from this year or any other year.The plot of the film has the Abbot of Kells, a village in Ireland building a wall around his town to prevent the vikings from destroying the town should they ever attack. His nephew Brendon, is a young monk who does the best he can but meets the ire of his uncle by doing things in his own time. When a legendary illuminator Aidan arrives from a destroyed monastery, Brendon drifts towards him and his warm personality. Much to his uncle's chagrin Aiden offers to teach Brendon how to illuminate. In order to help Aidan work on his great book, saved from his destroyed monastery, Brendan goes out into the forest to get material to make ink. While outside the walls he meets Ashley, a forest spirit with whom he develops a friendship. Unfortunately the Abbot finds out that he went outside the wall and there is hell to pay. But lurking in the distance are the vikings...Forget what you think you know about this film you're wrong. Even what I've explained doesn't do this film justice. Its a simple story with so much more going on. This is a wonderful movie about trying to find your way in the world, over coming demons and finding the beauty of the world outside of the walls. (As the film says the world is a dangerous place and doesn't cease to be even if you build walls).Its a film that treats its audience as adults and deals with all of life including the darkness. There is death and destruction and joy and happiness. Its not sugar coated. People die. Monsters lurk. (it freaked out some of the kids), but in the end there is hope. Frankly the darkness in this film is completely unlike anything in any recent American film. Forget the "sadness" in a Pixar film, this is the real thing, and its refreshing and it shows how homogenized even Pixar has become.Its a Genndy Tartakovsky-esquire (Samurai Jack) animated film who's look is actually based upon the the Celtic art of the period. Its a film that looks unlike any other. Here again is another film that takes the movie frame and uses it in every way possible. the Images are designed to fill the available space as much as possible. Often the film manipulated things to make it look like a page in the legendary Book of Kells. Its stunningly beautiful and best described as art come to life.Director Tomm Moore has fashioned a film that is a masterpiece. I can't say more than that. Its a masterpiece. Its one of the best animated films I've ever run across. | 1 |
train_6402 | I thought this move was very good. There were a few things that were less than perfect, but overall, I was quite surprised. The courtroom scene in the end seemed a little unrealistic, but was real enough to be entertaining. I found that the movie communicated the hardships of going though military training and the sacrifices that go along with it. Being a military pilot I could relate to many of these parts. | 1 |
train_15601 | This rip off of the 1984 hit "Gremlins" is quite possibly the biggest train wreck of a movie ever made. Even for a 'B' grade movie, all other cheap horror movies on the same platform completely dwarf this movie in terms of plot, acting, and goodness.It begins with a random old security guard and the younger punky security guard whose name is of no importance. Why? Because a few minutes into the film he walks into the 'forbidden' safe, and is killed whilst living out his fantasy of being a rock star in a cheap pub.This is just an appetizer for the scat-filled main course. The main character, KEVIN, struggles various times to prove himself as more than a total pussy. Perhaps he succeeds within the film, but to the audience he proves himself as nothing more than a bad actor. Kevin gets himself a job with the old security guard, and is guided through his security shift in the (wait for it) abandoned studio lot. Yes why bother making a set when you can just use the studio itself. Back to the film. Kevin somehow opens the forbidden safe and releases the Hobgoblins. The Hobgoblins force people to live out their wildest fantasies and then kill them for some reason. They must be returned before sunrise or else...or else what? Exactly.Other characters include Kevin's 'macho' army friend NICK, Nick's 'woman' DAPHNE whose character has no more substance than a bitch-slut attitude and prostitute worthy outfits. There is Kevin's manipulative and 'reserved' girlfriend AMY, whose deepest desire is apparently to be a badly portrayed Cher look-alike with fishnet stockings with a pair of blue grandma underpants on top.. Don't ask me how that works. Quite possibly the most entertaining character of all is KYLE. How such groups of friends are made is up for question. Kyle is a perverted creep who can't go an hour without self-stimulating. His hobbies include calling up sex-chat lines from other people's houses and most likely sniffing underwear.The story unfolds as the heroes search for the Hobgoblins: knee-high creatures (aka. hand puppets) which, for some reason, attempt to travel no further than the borders of the local neighborhood. Each of the characters eventually lives out their wildest fantasy which never has anything to do with having millions of dollars... or the film having a big budget.WARNING SPOILERS AHEAD: The twist at the end of this movie will leave the watcher wondering "What?". The Hobgoblins are returned to the safe by...their own free will. Perhaps they lost patience waiting for sunrise to wreak havoc, or perhaps the story-writers got writer's cramp and decided not to worry about the ending. Upon returning to the safe, the old security guard reveals "What he learned in the military" and detonates explosives which destroys the safe, signaling the end of the evil Hobgoblins and the end of this roller coaster ride; better fitted to a ride on an escalator.The sheer badness of this film is enough to send someone to tears. If you plan to watch it, I recommend a few alcoholic drinks beforehand to take any serious consideration of the film out of mind. | 0 |
train_7496 | I take issue with the other reviewer's comments for the simple reason that this is a MYSTERY FILM, not a supernatural one! It is not the only film to have a seemingly "supernatural" explanation ("vampires"), but turns out to be a very mundance one.Other films that come to mind are Edgar Wallace's "Before Dawn" and the (more famous) "Mark of the Vampire". The film does a WONDERFUL job in creating a very "spooky atmosphere", similar DRACULA, when Renfield meets the Count on the staircase of his castle, or in MARK OF THE VAMPIRE, when the two people look thru the windows of the castle ruins and see a "corpse" playing an organ, while Luna descends using wings! VERY surreal!If one likes these (often silent) atmospheric touches, THIS film is a MUST!Norm Vogel | 1 |
train_3604 | I Think It's a great movie. because you get to see how Diana's life at home is. she got so much aggression, and she wants to prove that girls can fight too. I think she and Adrian were great actors. Because of this movie I Am Boxing too. It really impressed me. the only negative part I think. Is the end. because It's alright between Diana and Adrian. But you don't get to see how it is at home. And I Didn't really like it that you also don't get to see how her father is doing, and her brother. but i Think it was A great movie and I Think I'm going to watch it a lot more:) I recommend it to anyone, even when you don't like boxing, you get to see a lot more than only boxing. I had a great time watching it. | 1 |
train_22128 | This has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen. The DVD was given to me free with an order I placed online for non DVD related items.No wonder they were given away, surely no one could part with money for this drivel.How some reviewers can say they found it hilarious beggars belief, the person who includes it in the worst five films ever has got it spot on.How on earth a talented actor like Philip Seymour Hoffman could get involved in this rubbish is unbelievable. Mostly toilet humour and badly done at that.Anyone wanting to be entertained should avoid this at all costs. | 0 |
train_7145 | This movie had a great ensemble of adult actors along with a cast of youthful actors that are going to be in movies for a long while if there is any justice. The directing and editing was great. I may look up the book that this was adapted from, it must have been great. (I liked it.) Sigourney Weaver, Jon Voight, and Tim Blake Nelson were a blast to watch! Henry Winkler and Nathan Davis were not seen enough, but were fun when they were onscreen. The kids at the camp couldn't have been better. (as I said, I liked it!) | 1 |
train_1136 | I'm not sure that this comment contains an actual spoiler, but I'm playing it safe, so don't read this if you haven't seen the movie.I adore this movie, and so does everyone I work with -- and that is the point. I spent a large part of my working life in cinema, without being an actor. Such people are the _sung_ heroes of this movie: the gaffers, the pullers, the on-air directors, the lighters and writers, the costume people etc etc, and the whole thing is told from their point of view, at least to a great extent. Most actors are nuts and self-absorbed to the point of absurdity, which is what this movie spoofs so well, but you have to have worked with actors to recognize that this movie is real-life drama! Possible spoiler alert: in one great scene, the two leads, both actors, are _discussing_ how to _discuss_ something personal, something entirely 'out-of-script', with another actor, and they start making up lines, rehearsing them, and critiquing each other's performance.Since this movie appeared in, what was it, '91, it has become fashionable to do this, especially on TV. But hardly anyone has done it so well. | 1 |
train_22194 | Otto Preminger directs this light as a feather story. Bohemian Jean Seberg and her equally bohemian widower father David Niven holiday in the South of France with nutty Mylène Demongeot. Things are fine until family friend Deborah Kerr shows up. Nivens, a degenerate womanizer, finds the conquest of Kerr too hard to resist. That's fine with Seberg, as long as Niven loves her and leaves her (as he's done with all the women in his past...including Demongeot). When it appears as though she's becoming second banana in Niven's life, Seberg exact revenge on Kerr. Preminger tells the story in flashbacks from Seberg's perspective and cleverly combines black and white with sunnier color scenes. The cinematography by Georges Périnal is stunning. The film features some of Preminger's least heavy-handed direction, although he rarely allows any close-ups, which makes it difficult to make out what the actors are really feeling. Arthur Laurents wrote the script and it's full of acidic dialog and funny scenes (mostly involving bird-brained Demongeot). Seberg acquits herself fairly well, but Niven is at his least appealing...and he shows no chemistry with either Seberg or Kerr. Preminger really mis-steps with that casting. It's a role that seems tailor made for someone closer to Charles Boyer. With Geoffrey Horne as Seberg's would-be suitor and Martita Hunt as his daffy mother. Juliette Gréco, playing herself, sings the title song in a Paris nightclub. The great titles are by Preminger regular Saul Bass. | 0 |
train_17184 | This movie is an insult to ALL submariners. It was stupid. It appeared to have been written by monkeys. The acting was absurd. If this is the view most people have of the Navy, then I weep for our defense. This movie was awful. I put it below "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" as far as submarine movies go. Gene Hackman must have really needed rent money to do this crap. Denzel Washington must have been high. Little in the plot makes any sense. And the ending. For a mutineer to be rewarded for his crime? Only Hollywood would think of this garbage. If you haven't figured it out yet, I didn't like it. And if it wasn't for all the pro comments, I would not have bothered to post. | 0 |
train_22862 | Disney? What happened? I really wish the movie had been set in the 60's ;like the book was. And I really could have dealt with cheap special effects in order to save the budget for a more accurate adaption..... I'm glad that, maybe, someone might be influenced to read the books..... but, The Man With Red Eyes interchangeable as IT? And what's up with the volcanic upheaval? Where was THAT in the book? Peter Jackson! Save us!!!! A long time ago (1978) I heard that there was European version of this film. I sure wish I could id it. I can only imagine it might be closer to the real story than this poor adaption. This movie needs to be X'd. | 0 |
train_4564 | If ever there were an inspiring story that could move anyone, disabled or not, to persevere despite the odds and make it (even when "make it" as an expression, proper, can have a wide berth which is an ultimately personal truth), MY LEFT FOOT is it. It's a hard film to watch at times: seeing the less placid aspects of Christy Brown's personality emerge in two key scenes -- one when his sister declares she is pregnant and about to get married while his father has a bad reaction, and at a dinner table when the woman who's reached out to him, made him able to communicate effectively, now has announced at a key moment (the inauguration of Brown's art) she is about to marry another man -- is tough. Very, very tough. More so because this is a man who cannot react accordingly to these events and can only express himself in the only way he knows how: via screams, shrieks, and profanities aimed at hurting himself. However, this is not a story of heartache and family dysfunction even when there is quite a bit of it furnishing the autobiographical account, but that of a man overcoming his severe disability, becoming a functioning human being and a force of be reckoned with in the art world. Daniel Day Lewis won an Oscar for his powerful, unforgettable performance as the flawed but tenacious Christy Brown, and Brenda Fricker did so as well for her supporting role as Brown's solid mother. | 1 |
train_8397 | This movie earned every one of the ten votes I gave it! Thank you guys for making a movie worth watching. You showed the world,you can still write, direct, produce and star in a black movie without the negative stereotypes. The poetry was awesome as well, hats off to the poets and musicians.I watched it last night, as I fell in love with my darling all over again. I will be adding it to my movie collection today, and recommending it to my friends and family.Please continue to produce quality, don't worry about the quantity....Thank you again, and best wishes and blesses to you! | 1 |
train_7949 | SPOILERS ALERTHomeward Bound: The Incredible Journey is an important film from my life because it's the first film I remember seeing in the cinema of my home town as a 4-year old scamp. The story is based on the Sheila Burnford novel, and is a reason why it's not possible to write this one off as a brainless Lassie clone.The basic story: Two dogs and a cat happily live in the Seaver family when the new husband to the mother of the three children, gets a job in the city and they have to temporarily move into inner San Francisco while the animals are sent to a ranch to live for a couple of months. The bonds between the animals and the children they watch out for are especially strong, and Shadow the golden retriever and Sassy the Himalayan cat are heartbroken as the children are, though the young and happy-go-lucky American Bulldog known as Chance is a little less concerned and somewhat cynical (due in part to his voice-over explaining his being abandoned as a pup, picked up to an animal shelter, and being bought by the family), though his growth as a character during the story provides much of the important storytelling.The three pets escape the ranch and head off into the wide and dangerous wilderness (fantastic wilderness settings by the way), driven on by Shadow's instincts of direction. They meet several perils along the way, hoping to make it home, while the family and the ranch hosts are suddenly concerned about the animal disappearance. There are funny moments all the way through, great dialogue between the three animals and hilarious lines (see - memorable quotes), and a touching comradeship that grows between the main characters during the course of the storytelling, punctuated by moments of sadness (such as when Sassy's arrogance of trying to cross a river without getting wet causes her to fall in the river and get washed down a waterfall, leaves a moment of loss that is felt deeply by the viewers).Somehow though, I fail to see what the inclusion of saving the girl lost in the wilderness adds to the story and the journey they take. Somehow, it seems a little unnecessary as part of the story.The ending cranks the stakes higher when shadow falls into a pit in a trainyard and having hurt his leg, finds it hard to get out and gives up, exhausted, followed by Chance climbing in with him to persuade him to climb out, telling him how important he is to him and how he's pushed them this far so he shouldn't throw it all away so easily. The way that this scene (brilliantly done) isn't concluded leaves an ambiguity that carries on into the final scene when Chance and Sassy return home, but Shadow is nowhere to be seen. Then just as all seems lost, he slowly appears, and is reunited with the family. Chance's conclusion at the end speaks of the comradeship that has developed between he and his fellows on the journey, and the realisation to what home really is from his long journey to get there, leaves a fine epilogue to demonstrate how much his character has grown, but also how the other two have as well. Hang on a second, I think I'm going to cry...Anyway, I haven't read Sheila Burnford's book, so I don't pretend to know where the differences between book and film lie. But this is a film that all the family can watch, and while the tots will love the talking animals, older viewers will understand the plot line better (as I found when I watched the film again after several years without seeing it). This film is a masterpiece in cinema, and I suggest that if you haven't seen it you go out and get it!And please avoid the sequel (see my review for Homeward Bound II!) | 1 |
train_22421 | Strummer's hippie past was a revelation, but overall this felt like crashing a wake. Campfire stories work best around the intimacy of a campfire. There were just too many semi-boring old friends anecdotes and too much filler stock footage. I love The Clash and Joe for not reuniting and selling their songs until now (FU Mick Jones), but this doc left me wanting..to relate more. Using campfire storytellers without proper explanation of who is telling the anecdote alienates the viewer to some extent. They should have been interviewed on their own. Even using Strummer's 'radio DJ voice' did little to glue the film together. And can someone explain all the flags flying behind the campfire scenes? After the awesome "Filth And The Fury" I hoped Temple could deliver. A Joe Strummer doc deserves better. | 0 |
train_24184 | This movie makes no sense at all, there are plot holes big enough to drive enormous NYPD vehicles through. The characters do not act in any plausible way whatsoever. I will put my comments in the chat board, but save your time and money, this is stupid. I can't stand when Hollywood spends millions of dollars on flash bang equipment and uses fancy editing and cool music, and does not bother to have a plot that hangs together at even the most basic level. But it is nice to see Denzel W. prevail over the Man, who comes in 3 flavors, Jodi Foster, Mayor Bloomberg and Capt. Von Trapp. There is even a sweet little kid with a video game who is nice. | 0 |
train_19543 | I was prepared to laugh throughout this movie like a Mystery Science Theater experiment, but it was just boring. It appears that the producers had many biker enthusiast friends, and from there casually decided to make a movie. It is frequently unwatchable. Lots of footage of the bikers riding on a dirt road, with the same music played repeatedly. Unfortunately, Renee Harmon is barely in the movie. Harmon probably would have livened things up. Perhaps she had other commitments the day this was filmed.Of course, the bikers terrorize a small town. Fights, murder, a cowardly cop, a goofy mechanic, etc. One of the bikers always wears a football helmet, a weak attempt to distinguish him from all the other outlaws.The script has nothing to offer. One scene features a biker assaulting a woman, yelling in the lady's face "You're all the same! You're all the same!". We come back to the scene a minute later and he again declares "You're all the same!". Couldn't the writer think of something more creative to say??At the end the good guys have killed the bad guys. We also learn that the wedding between middle-aged mechanic Joe and young Susie has been canceled. Susie is going away to college, and we abruptly learn that Joe's wedding is still on (but with a different bride). End. | 0 |
train_9784 | Sensitive film does lack brilliance and, to some degree, narrative structure, but is nevertheless superbly shot and performed. However, the narrative structure point is debatable. While it gives the impression of tying off loose ends nicely in the final scenes, and connects its thoughts with what might be described by the modern viewer as a "story", I'm sceptical as to whether this feel *needs* a "narrative structure" that is definite and detectable. Inevitably, it will be compared with SOMERSAULT in that its central protagonist (I'm not sure that's the correct word!) is a young, and very young-looking, woman, whose newly discovered sexuality both confuses and empowers her - although of course Cate Shortland's film tackles this aspect better. But while the possibility exists for reckless viewers to dismiss this film as a cliché, PEACHES is, in some ways, much more ambitious than SOMERSAULT. Perhaps that's where it doesn't quite make it. It's certainly very different to Monahan's first feature - THE INTERVIEW! I'm not quite sure how the sex scenes between Weaving and Lung added to the story. Who knows - maybe they did. They certainly rammed home the compromised and flawed nature of Weaving's character - although I personally think this was achieved without the need for these scenes.*****JUST SAW THE FILM AGAIN*********On a second viewing, I can see how some would dismiss it as a telemovie dressed up as a feature. But I'm not sure how distinct these 'categories' are anymore, or even if we should be making that distinction. In any case, I do think there are enough layers in the film to distinguish it from Hallmark efforts. On the other hand, the film's structure is very formal, and its content is hardly challenging,at least in the way SOMERSAULT, TOM WHITE, THREE DOLLARS, THE ILLUSTRATED FAMILY DOCTOR, LOOK BOTH WAYS and THE HUMAN TOUCH are. The performances are all good, but I did come to the realisation that the main reason I was enjoying the film was because it fit the "Australian" genre, without necessarily adding anything...and I can understand that this can be a fairly good reason for another person *NOT* to like it! Indeed, it wasn't until Lung enters the room in her Vietnamese dress that the film really begins to pack a punch. But that leads us into another debate - *should* we expect that a film must challenge us all the time? Certainly I enjoy being challenged by a film (or a book, or other people), but is there no room anymore for what is simply a nice story?I haven't deleted my initial post on this film, because I'm all too aware of the Orwellian overtones of such an act. But I would downgrade my initial rating from an 8 to perhaps a 6.5.As for nominations for AFI Best Film, my votes go to THE HUMAN TOUCH, THREE DOLLARS and LOOK BOTH WAYS - and I think LOOK BOTH WAYS should win. | 1 |
train_7493 | In an attempt to cash in on the success of Universal's horror films Majestic Pictures hired several popular actors from the current genre and put them in this effort that (realistically speaking) is nowhere near as good. With that, this is still worth everyone's time and it's a heck of a lot of fun to view and in my opinion it's better than most of what is supposed to pass nowadays as horror! Story takes place in the small German town of Klineschloss where the bodies have been piling up completely drained of blood and with suspicious puncture marks. Burgermister Gustave Schoen (Lionel Belmore) shouts "It's Vampires" but the local police chief Karl Brettschneider (Melvyn Douglas) thinks it's a madman who's responsible and he vows to catch him.*****SPOILER ALERT***** The Burgermeister and most of the towns folk think that the local kook Herman Glieb (Dwight Frye) who loves bats and frequently talks to them is the one they are looking for and they chase him until he falls to his death in a cave. The one who is responsible for the killings is Dr. Otto von Niemann (Lionel Atwill) who has created a new form of tissue mass that feeds on blood and he accomplishes this by having some sort of mind control over his servant Emil (Robert Frazer) who goes out at night to collect the blood. Dr. Otto has a pretty assistant named Ruth Bertin (Fay Wray) and an annoying aunt named Gussie (Maude Eburne) but they have no clue what he's up to but Karl eventually become suspicious when one of the murders takes place after Herman's death.Frank R. Strayer was never confused with being James Whale but he was a pretty competent director who ended up directing most of the "Blondie" films in that series and with this film he uses the same sets from "The Old Dark House" which was also filmed at Universal. I'm the first to admit that this film is downright clumsy at times but it's practically impossible to resist a film that has a cast like this including Frye who is pretty much doing his Renfield role only this time he befriends bats and strokes them and keeps them in his pocket for safe keeping! One thing that just doesn't make sense is the mind control that Dr. Otto has over Emil as the film never explains this and I had a strong sense that this was some sort of nod to "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" but on the other hand it's probably just the weakest part of the script. There are a few other tidbits that I noticed including the chase of Frye to the big caves which is obviously an early shot of the infamous Bronson Canyon where numerous other films have been made and also Wray's brown hair which is her true color. True horror film fans will appreciate this more than others but I think this is a fun film to view for everyone and with a cast as attractive as this it's well worth a look. | 1 |
train_9181 | I had no idea what Jane Eyre was before I saw this miniseries. I had read and watched many classics before, and I believed that most classics were boring, over-worded, and overrated stories with moderately interesting plots at best. This Jane Eyre miniseries completely changed my conceptions.Zelah Clarke is a fabulous actress, and she gives a wonderful portrayal of Jane Eyre. Her accent is delightful and her quiet, yet firm nature matches the young governess' character exactly. Timothy Dalton is an amazing Rochester. His passion and energy in the film makes me believe that he was born to play the brooding master of Thornfield Hall. I couldn't sleep at all the night after I had watched this miniseries. The plot is both haunting and inspiring. The characters are masterfully performed, and the story is incredible. This is the best version of Jane Eyre to ever appear on film.I read the book later and was amazed at how closely this miniseries followed Charolette Bronte's writing. Jane Eyre is now my favorite film and book. If you want to see a masterpiece that will change your life, watch the 1983 BBC version of Jane Eyre. | 1 |
train_12868 | This movie is really goofy! I saw it as an 11 year old, and even then I thought it was pretty ridiculous! I would only recommend this film to kids under the age of 12. I really didn't care for it, but I do think that it answers some very good questions that kids need to be aware of, such as: 1)Does money buy happiness? 2)Should I lie (to my parents) about things I think they wouldn't approve of? 3)Does money buy friendships? 4)Is money everything? 5)Shouldn't I tell my parents when someone is trying to hurt me? Granted, these are very unrealistic situations, but I do think that if parents discussed these issues with their children, maybe they should watch this video as well, in order to show/scare their kids that lies have the potential to get you hurt. | 0 |
train_6501 | If you want just about everything you want to know about WWII from multiple perspectives, this DVD delivers, you WILL learn new things guaranteed, so much so that you won't need any other documentary's on the subject. Get this, watch it, learn from it. Good for school use as well. As a bonus, watch this with Tora tora tora, saving private ryan, patton, band of brothers, a bridge too far, the longest day and other WWII epics along with this to make your knowledge of WWII even more complete. Sir Laurence Oliver's voice adds to the overall atmosphere of each episode in this 26 part series. Seriously you won't find a better WWII documentary set on the subject. PERFECT 10!!! | 1 |
train_3006 | While a 9 might seem like an unusually high score for such a slight film, however, compared to the hundreds and hundreds of series detective films from the 1930s and 40s, this is among the very best and also compares very favorably to Powell's later "Thin Man" films. Now this does NOT mean that the film is that similar to the Thin Man movies, as THE KENNEL MURDER CASE is not a comedy but more a traditional mystery-detective film. Now you'd think that not having Nora Charles or Asta or a traditional comic sidekick (something found in practically all series detective films) along for fun would be a detriment, but I didn't miss them at all because this was such an exceptionally well-written film--having a genuinely interesting case as well as uniformly excellent performances by all.The film begins at the dog show and is called The KENNEL Murder Case, though this Philo Vance film actually spends little of the time at the dog show and dogs are not a super-important part of the film. Instead, a thoroughly hated man is killed and left in a completely sealed room--an idea repeated in quite a few other detective films (such as CRIME DOCTOR'S STRANGEST CASE). However, how all this is explained seems pretty credible and fit together very well--keeping my interest throughout. I sure wish other detective films of the day had as intelligently written plots and exceptional acting as this one. This one is definitely a keeper. | 1 |
train_17322 | After having red the overwhelming reviews this film got in my country, I but wanted to see it. But - what a disappointment! To see a bunch of one-dimensional characters in a plot that lacks of originality is not worth the money and the time to spend. I sometimes wonder about the filmcritics in switzerland. | 0 |
train_21476 | The first point that calls the attention in "For Ever Mozart" is the absence of a plot summary in IMDb. The explanation is simple since there is no story, screenplay, plot or whatever might recall the minimum structure of a movie. Jean-Luc Godard is one of the most overrated and pretentious directors of the cinema industry and this pointless crap is among his most hermetic films. I believe that neither himself has understood what is this story about; but there are intellectuals that elucubrate to justify or explain this messy movie, and it is funny to read their reviews. My vote is one.Title (Brazil): "Para Sempre Mozart" ("Forever Mozart") | 0 |
train_23691 | The Order starts in Rome where the head of a special order of priests who deal in ghosts & demons named Brother Dominic (Francesco Carnelutti) is found dead, cut to New York City where one of his order Alex Bernier (Heath Ledger) is contacted by top-brass Cardinal Driscoll (Peter Weller) who ask's him to investigate the mysterious circumstances surrounding Dominic's death. Along with his girlfriend Mara Willims (Shannyn Sossamon) & fellow priest Thomas Garrett (Mark Addy) Alex travels to Italy to delve into his mentor's death, as the truth begins to emerge it appears that Dominic was a 'Sin Eater' someone who absorbed other's sins & lived with the burden of them so they could die peacefully & that the Church wasn't happy about his activities. Alex must do what's right even if it goes against what he believes...Also know under the title The Sin Eater this American German co-production was written, produced & directed by Bian Helgeland & didn't really do that much for me if I'm honest & I usually am, honest that is. Anyway lets start with the mess of a script that has some OK ideas but it's throughly predictable, excruciatingly dull & boring, really silly at times & it takes itself far too seriously. The whole concept is daft & while it thinks it's clever with it's oh so neat twist ending that ties everything up & brings the story full circle I thought it was the most obvious & lazy way to end things. There's the usual religious themes here, morality, sin, forgiveness, faith, belief, prophecy's, blah, blah, blah you know the sort of thing. Then there's the twists which aren't hard to see coming, there's the abuse of power by high ranking clergymen, corruption, greed, evil, etc. you know the sort of clichéd Hollywood ideals & themes that get reused every time it deals with the Church. The Order has nothing new to say & as a serious piece of film-making it sucks, a lot. I'm not too sure who The Order is meant to appeal to, as a die-hard horror fan I didn't see much horror in this at all, as a thriller it's less than thrilling, as a mystery it's too predictable & there's nothing here to really grip or maintain ones interest & for some reason I cannot figure out the IMDb also lists The Order as an action film which is absurd as it's as exciting & action-packed as the average episode of Sesame Street (1969 - present), harsh maybe but it's what I think...Director Helgeland does an OK job, the film seems to have a very soft lighting scheme & it all looks a bit drab, grayish & dull. For a supposed horror film The Order is very light on scares or horror elements, in fact there aren't any of either apart from two evil kids who can turn into a flock of birds for no apparent reason, don't ask. Forget about any gore or violence as there isn't any which is fine but it would have helped at least make The Order somewhat watchable. According the IMDb's 'Trivia' section the release date of The Order was put back so some of the special effects could be improved because they looked unintentionally funny, all I can say is judging by the finished film the effects must have been really bad to start with because they aren't exactly brilliant as it stands now.I was amazed to see The Order had a budget of about $28,000,000 which is a hell of a lot of money & I just can't see where it all went apart from the sets & production design which are good. The whole film looks & feels very average & utterly forgettable. The acting is OK although the annoying fat guy who seems to be some sort of foul-mouthed comic relief irritates, a good actor such as Peter Weller deserves better than this.The Order, I prefer the title The Sin Eater actually not that it matters too much, misses all of it's intended targets by the proverbial mile as far as I'm concerned & is a pretty dull way to waste 100 odd minutes of your life so don't do it! Not recommended. | 0 |
train_23256 | After perusing the large amount of comments on this movie it is clear that there are two kinds of science fiction movie-goers. There are the ones who are well read, extremely literate, and intelligent. They know the history of the genre and more importantly they know to what heights it can reach in the hands of a gifted author. For many years science fiction languished in the basement of literature. Considered my most critic to be little more than stories of ray guns and aliens meant for pre-pubescent teenagers. Today's well read fan knows well this history, and knows the great authors Asimov, Heinlein, Bradbury, and Ellison, who helped bring science fiction out of that basement. In doing so they created thought provoking, intelligent stories that stretched the boundaries and redefined the human condition. This well informed fans are critical of anything Hollywood throws at them. They are not critical for it's own sake, but look upon each offering with a skeptical eye. (As they should as Hollywood's record has been less than stellar.) To these fans the story must take supreme importance. They cannot be fooled by flashy computer graphics, and non stop action sequences. When the emperor has no clothes they scream it the loudest.The second type of science fiction movie goer has little knowledge about the written aspect of the genre. (Look at many of the above comments that state "Well I haven't read the book or anything by this author...) Their total exposure to science fiction is from movies or the Scifi channel. They are extremely uncritical, willing to overlook huge plot holes, weak premises, and thin story lines if they are given a healthy dose of wiz bang action and awesome special effects. They are, in effect, willing to turn off their critical thinking skills (or maybe they never had them!) for the duration of the movie. Case in point, I Robot. While supposedly based on Asimov's short stories and named after one of his novels, it contains little of what Asimov wrote and even less of what he tried to tell us about humanity and our robotic creations. (Those of you that will run out and buy I, Robot will be very much surprised-this movie isn't even based on that story at all!) The film has enormous plot holes, that at some points are stretched to the limits of credulity. I won't point them out. I won't spoon feed you. You need to practice you thinking skills and discover them for yourself. The characters, which are named after many of Asimov's characters, do not possess the critical intelligence that was a hallmark of his stories. The plot itself with all it's action sequences goes against everything that the author stood for. His belief that humanity possesses the capacity to solve problems using their minds, not their fists, is vital to understanding his vision of the future. In short, other than the name, their is very little of Isaac in anything about this movie. There will always be those uncritical (i.e. unthinking) who will state: "The movie doesn't have to be like the book. Due to the medium, movies sometimes require that changes be made." But what about a case where the movie never even tried to stay close to the book (or books) from the start? What if all they took from the written work was the title? This begs the question: Why tarnish a great body of work by slapping it's title on your vacuous piece of crap? Save money and don't buy the rights to the works. Title it something else. Don't use the character's names. Believe me no one will accuse you of plagiarism. In fact it won't matter what you title it to the unread moviegoer who accepts everything you throw at him. But it will upset those who read, who think, who are unwilling to simply let you give them a pretty light show. I, Robot, like much of Hollywood's take on the genre, pushes Science fiction back down into that basement it lived in years ago. Hollywood could not do this alone. It takes an uncritical mindless audience that will accept puerile dredge like this. | 0 |
train_23709 | This insipid mini operetta featuring a Eddy-McDonald prototype in a Valentino scenario is so bad it becomes an endurance exercise after five minutes. It's silly from the get go as this brevity opens two military men discussing the lack of manliness in the son of one of the officers. In under a minute he is packed off to Morrocco where he lives a double life as the Red Shadow; the leader of an Arab tribe that would rather sing than fight.Alexander Gray and Bernice Clare possess fine light opera voices (with little acting ability) and there's a decent bass in there as well but the acting is so haphazard scenes so ill prepared you get the feeling they are making things up as they go along.This two reeler was part of a larger stage production that lists six writers. With more room to spoof and warble the show may have had some entertainment values but this rushed quickie is little more than an insult to an audience waiting for the feature presentation. | 0 |
train_14501 | Why were there so many people crowding into an evening showing of Roberto Moreira's "Up Against Them All" ("Contra Todos") at the San Francisco Film Festival? "It's about a hit man," my friend said. "Well. . . and it's Brazilian," I added. Beautiful multicolored people, tropical weather, lush rhythms, and a hip gangster plot? Ample enticements no doubt.Somebody forgot to tell us one little detail: this is a very bad movie, really pretty horrible, and as unpleasant to watch as it is poorly made.So how on earth did "Contra Todos" get to make the rounds of Berlin, Melbourne, London, Manila, Stockholm, Cairo, Chicago, numerous smaller local festivals, and now San Francisco? Apparently, because of the way the promotional process and the film festival circuit work.First of all, it won first prize at the Rio Film Festival where it was called the best Brazilian movie of the year. It must have been a bad year; they've had much, much better ones. Next, snappy synopses in catalogs plus imaginary buzz lead to crowded auditoriums and -- since the movie isn't featured anywhere and so avoids close scrutiny by critics -- it keeps going the rounds.Festival blurbs aimed at promotion sometimes goose it up a lot. A Chicago Festival one called "Contra Todos" "a speedball cocktail shot straight out of Brazil" and referred to Claudia's s boyfriend as the "stud of the slum-like neighborhood." Soninha is "Teodoro's nymph-like teen-aged daughter of burgeoning sexuality." The movie is "shot with the urgency of a frequently hand-held camera" and the director "works up a genuine and palpable sense of frustration borne from domestic desperation and decay." The effect is " unbearably raw and honest," and the movie hurtles "toward a conclusion as dead-ended as the lives on display." Not the best writing, but it sure pumps up the excitement for a certain kind of potential viewer."Contra Todos" does concern a hit man, two hit men actually, and a wife and daughter and a born-again Christian girlfriend. It's shot -- in execrably ugly digital video with no talent behind the camera-work -- mostly in a barren-looking poor suburb rather than in one of the teeming "favelas" or village-like Brazilian city slums where such wonderful films as "Black Orpheus", "Pixote," and "City of God" were made, and not in Rio this time, but São Paulo.The hit man with family problems is Teodoro ( Giulio Lopez) and his partner with a drug problem is Waldomiro (Ailtan Graça). Both actors have a little TV experience as does the actress who plays Teodoro's sluttish blonde wife Cláudia (Leona Cavalli) and Silvia Lorenço who plays his pouting, ready-to-revolt daughter Soninha. These actors might make it through the back corners of a few telenovelas. Who knows? -- in a better directed film they might even be good. Aside from them there are some young men who get bumped off by Teordoro or, when he's busy, gangs of thugs. The principals don't work up much presence, even though the camera magnifies their pores.A couple of observers, one at the Berlin Festival and one at London's, did see this movie's failings but alas they're buried in the Web hinterlands. Henry Sheehan noted from Berlin that the "film" (his quotes) was "the worst of the video works" shown. "The filmmaker seems to have chosen video simply because it was a cheap alternative to film," Sheehan wrote, "and hasn't made any creative use of the new medium" -- nor, he adds, done anything else creative.Sheehan pointed out the movie's first big mistake: it "starts off as a domestic drama that's supposed to ratchet up when, half an hour into the action, Moreira reveals that the father and one of his friends are professional hit men. Waiting the thirty minutes adds nothing to the movie; it seems like a perfectly arbitrary decision and is, at the very least, a waste of time. But ratcheting up is all Moreira ever does, like a little kid who's gotten a tool kit for his birthday, and goes around banging everything in sight without rhyme, reason or skill." Devastating, but true.Writing about the 2004 London festival for Kamera.com, Metin Alsanjak tried to look at the positive side but nonetheless gave away the lack of redeeming features in calling the performances "easily the film's best feature." Yes, very easily, given that everything else is so bad. Alsanjak admitted that " this low-budget, violent and seedy account of the lawless in Sao Paulo is devoid of any likable characters, and as a result, of hope. Too dark and cynical to be a telling account of the human condition, the film is not helped by poor subtitling.. ." Alsanjak's connecting Contra Todos to "Dogme" and Mike Leigh didn't help matters.Apart from that meaningless first half hour in which nothing redeems the boredom of our wait for the first acts of violence -- which, when they come, are just "banging everything in sight without rhyme, reason or skill" -- Moreira clumsily tries to redeem his abrupt finale by adding what appear to be outtakes right after it, followed by an implausible ironic concluding scene where one of the characters gets married. No doubt the director wanted to exhibit the "banality of evil" of low-level hit men in working class neighborhoods, but he can't make the characters, which he sees generically, come alive for us. And the structure of the film shows that he also can't edit his material. (Seen at the San Francisco International Film Festival on April 28, 2005.) | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.