id
stringlengths 7
11
| text
stringlengths 52
10.2k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|---|
train_21908
|
Watching a videotaped replay of about 8 various 1994-1997 Spider-man cartoons made me realize why I couldn't stomach it when it first came out.I'm from the old school, where the 1967 Spider-man cartoon was the best and still remains the best. (I won't get into the psychedelic version which is terrible - give me traditional villains please.)The acting in the new stuff is lousy, read off a sheet with either no feeling or overacting. Paul Soles, where are you now? This guy was the best at voice acting for Spider-man. No one comes close. Watching Secret Wars, a great idea for a cartoon mini-series, made me wince. Dr. Doom sounds like a comedy version of Bela Lugosi. In a scene with Red Skull and Doc Ock, Red Skull has no German accent while Ock is heavy Russian! The old Marvel comic hero series from 1966 had much better voice acting. Iron Man sounded like he was wearing an iron mask, Captain America sounded authoritative not like some teenage kid. Paul Frees as the Thing in the 60s was the best Thing ever. The old voice actors were pioneers and there will never be anyone like them. Ever hear Mel Blanc's son? No way can he replicate his dad.The animation is clunky. Okay, so they have all the fancy character shadings and nicely painted backrounds. Sometimes you can say more with less movement if more movement looks bad. Sometimes when you let the computer take over the movements they become robotic. I really don't think any of these animators know what in betweeners are. The stories are badly written, and some of the lines they give the heroes are horrible. Why, for example, when heroes are teamed together for the first time they start fighting with each other? In Secret Wars, it was a lame excuse that got them in disagreement. I can see if the hero was dark, unknown and mysterious - like the Punisher, but why the Thing and Iron Man can't hold their tempers with each other is ridiculous, then the Torch joins in. This is just another of the later comic trends to get heroes to square off at each other for a few seconds because 'everyone' wants to see that stuff. Give them a better reason to fight and maybe it can be pulled off, but "Hey what are you doing here" and "You don't tell me what to do" are LAME reasons. Another badly written scene is in The Wedding where Harry Osborne unmasks himself to spoil Peter's wedding. That whole scenario was awful.Last, but certainly not least, is what another critic calls Juvenile Violence - meaning no punches at all. In Secret Wars, the Lizard carefully ducked the Thing's charge. But the Thing punches the bad guys across an entire block in the comics. He must simply revert to lifting heavy things and subduing a bad guy by grabbing hold of him in the cartoons. Sure, these cartoons were not made strictly for us adults but for kids under 12. That's why they can't have punching, because mommy and daddy don't believe in that type of violence. But you can blow things up, these cartoons will include that. As a kid before political correctness came in fashion I saw cartoons punching each other. What's wrong with a punch to the chops? Is there really less violence in the world today because those slick and crafty new cartoons took out the punch? I find this the most insulting of all when I watch the new stuff. They've written out "the punch' because we could all hurt ourselves.Kids, enjoy these cartoons all you want, I've seen enough.3/10 rating
| 0
|
train_6217
|
Follow the Fleet, an RKO production in 1936, stars Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers in a complex romantic comedy. Although Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers have had many similar romantic movies together, RKO helped them to once again create a worth-while storyline that incorporates relevant situations to society at the time it was made. The narrative of Follow the Fleet relies heavily on the use of layered story lines between the two sets of main characters to create a satisfying romantic comedy.The general plot of the movie revolves around Bake Baker, a Sailor in the U.S. Navy played by Fred Astaire, and Sherry Martin, Bake's former love and dance partner who is now a singer and dancer played by Ginger Rogers. Their story begins when Bake is on the ship and his shipmate Bilge Smith finds a photo of the two of them together, and Bake reveals that the last time he saw her he had asked her to marry him, so Bilge suggests that they try and meet up with her when they are on land, in hopes that she might have a friend. The next major scene begins the second plot of the movie when Connie Martin, Sherry's sister, is refused entry into Paradise where her sister works unless she is escorted by a gentleman. She turns around to find Bilge behind her with a bag full of beverages, so she plays it off like she was waiting on him and buys his entrance into Paradise as well. Connie then finds Sherry and tells her that she is depressed because she cannot have the luck Sherry does with men, so Sherry suggests she get a makeover from her friends while she is performing on stage. Connie gets made over, and enters the ballroom once again, and approaches Bilge again, who is awestruck by the sight of her. This commences the second romantic storyline between Bilge and Connie.Throughout the remainder of the movie the story and rising actions are transitioned between altering comedic reliefs of the two couples' troubles that create several mini rising and falling actions within the overall plot. Bake and Sherry hit it off their first moments together as they compete in a dance competition and end up winning it, reminding them of the success and pleasure the two have when they are together. Similarly, Bilge is able to swoon Connie through his romantic attempts of pleasing her, and they retire to her house. This series of happy events is soon followed by unsettling measures that brings the rising action back down. Bake left Sherry the previous night to retire to the ship before midnight, and told her that he would come for her in the morning. Unfortunately the ship sets course after the shipmates have returned, upsetting Sherry and leaving her to think Bake was still being a typical sailor looking for a good time when he's on land. The mood is again changed as another subplot is entered into the film when a "party of big shots" is taking a tour of the ship. This alternate storyline is used to create a buffer between the stories of the two main relationships of the film, as well as help build confidence and fondness of Bake's overall good intentions. The party is interrupted by the oblivious music playing coming from Bake and his companions when they missed the sounding to report on deck for the company. The ladies are intrigued and ask to hear them play, and Bake gladly begins to entertain them with some dancing, which ultimately helps brighten the mood of the film, as well as bring happiness to the sailors. After returning to the couple's intertwined stories, Sherry is trying to prove to Bake that she does not need his help with landing a job. Unfortunately Bake is unaware that she is auditioning, and goes to put in a good word for Sherry when he overhears his friend at the studio talking about the remarkable lady auditioning. Bake takes it upon himself to help Sherry out by tampering with her water, making her unable to sing correctly and destroying her audition. In addition to Bake's mistake, Connie spent all of her money to repair a ship that she was hoping Bilge would take over as captain. She had also planned a remarkable dinner date for him when he was supposed to come over, but Bilge was aware of her intentions and hopes of soon marrying and was no longer interested, so he stood her up. The remainder of the movie continues in the same format of mini rising and falling actions until the climactic point is reached between the two couples, ending the movie with the happiness of both couples. The use of the altering stories helps to build interest and emotion within each couple as they deal with both happiness and pain through each of their struggles. The intertwining stories are also able to relate with one another, as well as incorporate other unrelated subplots to help carry the narrative through to the concluding scenes. Although Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers have countless films together that incorporate romance, comedy, song, and dance, Follow the Fleet is a unique film for the two actors that successfully use the technique of subplots to aid the narrative between the two main characters.
| 1
|
train_11024
|
This movie is just great. It's entertaining from beginning to the end, you're always gonna be at the edge of your seat throughout the entire movie. In my opinion this movie is highly underrated by the critics.Sly suits perfectly into the role of the well trained mountain-rescue guy Gabe Walker. Together with him Michael Rooker makes a great appearance as Hal Tucker. And then, John Lithgow, one of the best performances I've seen of him as a villain.And the fact that 75% of the movie takes place at a mountain with a whole lot of bad guys on it makes way for a lot of action! Brilliant movie!
| 1
|
train_18009
|
When I was a kid in the 50's and 60's anything connected with Disney was by definition great. What happened? They are able to get any actors and actresses they want, the best of their time. But somehow Disney manages to screw things up in spite of their abundant resources.Disney can afford the best writers, the best producers and directors, but still...they screw things up! This movie is crap. The sad thing is that I suspect Disney in their arrogance does not even know when a movie is good or bad.It is only due to the talent of the actors that I can even give it a 3 of 10.
| 0
|
train_31
|
Once upon a time in a castle...... Two little girls are playing in the garden's castle. They are sisters. A blonde little girl (Kitty) and a brunette one (Evelyn). Evelyn steals Kitty's doll. Kitty pursues Evelyn. Running through long corridors, they reach the room where their grandfather, sitting on an armchair, reads the newspaper. Kitty complains about Evelyn, while Evelyn is looking interestedly at a picture hanging on the wall. Evelyn begins to say repeatedly: "I am the red lady and Kitty is the black lady". Suddenly Evelyn grabs a dagger lying nearby and stabs Kitty's doll and then cuts her (the doll's) head. A fight ensues. And Evelyn almost uses the dagger against Kitty. The grandfather intervenes and the worst is avoided.Later on, their grandfather tells them the legend related to the picture hanging on the wall in front of them, in which a lady dressed in black is stabbing a lady dressed in red:"A long time ago, a red lady and a black lady lived in the same castle. They were sisters and hated each other. One night, for jealousy reasons, the black lady entered the red lady's room and stabbed her seven times. One year later, the red lady left her grave. She killed six innocent people, and her seventh victim was the black lady. Once every hundred years, the events repeat themselves in this castle and a red lady kills six innocent victims before killing the black lady herself."The grandfather ends his tale by saying that according to the legend, sixteen years from now, the red queen should come again and kill seven times. But he assures them that this is just an old legend.Sixteen years pass.....This is the very beginning of the film. There are many twists and surprises in the film. It's better for you to forget about logic (if you really analyse it, the story doesn't make sense) and just follow the film with its wonderful colors, the gorgeous women, the clothes, the tasteful decor, the lighting effects and the beautiful soundtrack.Enjoy Barbara Bouchet, Sybil Danning, Marina Malfatti, Pia Giancaro, among other goddesses. There's a nude by Sybil Danning lying on a sofa that's something to dream about. And don't forget: The lady in red kills seven times!If you've liked "La Dama Rossa..." check out also "La Notte che Evelyn uscì dalla Tomba".
| 1
|
train_12181
|
"The Lady from Shanghai" is well known as one of Hollywood's most troubled productions. Welles' original cut was taken away by the producers and cut to ribbons. This made the already muddled mystery story even more difficult to keep track of. They post dubbed a good amount of his dialog because of the density of the Irish accent, and the dubbing is all too apparent and poorly done. Most disastrous of all, Welles and his on screen and real life leading lady Rita Hayworth were falling apart in their relationship, and their tumultuous chemistry comes through on screen.Fortunately, this is all overcome by just how fantastic Orson Welles' direction is. He makes the film incredibly stylish and atmospheric - every scene just seems to be breathing down your back from the screen. Also, the characters and scenes are so bizarre they border on dreamlike and surreal. This sense of weirdness elevates scenes that are often found in these films, such as the courtroom sequences in the middle. I typically find courtroom dramas a bore, but Welles' direction and quirky touches make them just as fascinating as everything else. The ending at the carnival reminds one of David Lynch almost.The acting here is also very good. Despite their failing relationship, Welles and Hayworth both give decent performances - their interactions however are just a bit lacking. Everyone else is superb and delightful to watch though, especially Everett Sloane and Glenn Anders. "The Lady from Shanghai" obviously has its problems, but its worth watching just to see one of cinema's masters at his finest. (8/10)
| 1
|
train_7922
|
In this send-up of horror films, 50's cold war paranoia, Reagan-era America, and high school films, Adam Arkin plays Tony, the star quarterback of Full Moon High in the 1950's. He and his father (Ed McMahon) travel to communist Romania and while he's lost in the streets one night, he is bitten by a werewolf. When he returns stateside, he cannot control his animalistic urges and goes on a killing spree. Frustrated, he flees town. Decades later, the immortal Tony returns to town and re-enrolls in highschool. He still can't control his transformations, and the townspeople, and his friends, realize he's not quite human. It all culminates during the schools big football game.I expected this to be one of those 'so bad it's good' films from the early 80's. But I was surprised that the film was actually, legitimately funny. The cast, including Kenneth Mars as a pervy coach, Roz Kelly as Tony's lusty former flame, Demond Wilson as a bus driver, and Alan Arkin as a oddball doctor, go all out, with hilarious results.While watching this film I was struck by how similar the writing and humor were to 'Family Guy.' 'Full Moon High' has that same anything goes attitude and never takes itself seriously.
| 1
|
train_6543
|
I read all of Nancy Drew as a preteen and collect the books as a grown-up. I loved the effect used at the end (and a little bit at the beginning) of the movie where line drawings in the style of the books morphed into scenes from the movie. It was a neat way of pointing out connections between situations in the movie and the books. For example, the scenes with the Oriental antiques dealer were very reminiscent of many scenarios I remember from the books. I thought Ned was perfectly cast, and Emma Roberts was a wonderful 21st century interpretation of Nancy Drew. (Just like the picture of Betty Crocker, she keeps up with the times!)
| 1
|
train_17229
|
LIVE A LITTLE, LOVE A LITTLE is one of Elvis' weirdest movies. Part slapstick, part fluff, part surreal and part strange. Elvis meets up with a very off-beat girl with an annoying voice. She looks like Jennifer Aniston. Story doesn't make much sense as is the case with most Elvis Presley movies, and there a bunch of odd characters galore. Not much music in this one, but what there is I liked, although none are memorable. Strange continuity. Elvis and Michelle Carey go into her beach house at night, but a few minutes later a delivery boy comes in and it's stark daylight!! What?? That's about the essence of the movie. What?? Oh, two good things about the movie: A) Elvis looks great and B) the dog steals the show.
| 0
|
train_19707
|
I was a huge fan of the original cartoon series, and was looking forward to finally seeing Gadget on the big screen -- but I never in my wildest dreams expected something so extremely extremely terrible. The pace was WAY too fast, there was no plot, and 'wowser!' - what the hell is that?? It was 'WOWSERS!!'.
| 0
|
train_15936
|
A girl is showering unknowing that a serial rapist is staring at her through the skylight. Detectives Martin Manners and Orville Stone is hot on his trail, but not hot enough as they find him after he kills, rapes, and eats a nipple of the girl.He's the shot to death. One would hope that this would be the end of the film. Not because it's too horrifying, but because the level of acting is atrociously horrid. Sadly it's not the end and months later the rapist is resurrected as a zombie by a coven of satanists. So he continues where he left off, with the detectives on the case again, this time a flying baby is after him too (don't ask). There has been VERY good VERY low-budget movies (Street Trash and Filthy McNasty spring to mind), but this one is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Horrible acting, crappy dime store special effects, lame attempt at comedy and oh yeah, and the ending sucks too.My Grade: F Eye Candy: Theresa Bestul gets fully nude; Anne R. Key gets topless
| 0
|
train_1033
|
Say what you will about schmaltz. One beauty of this film is that it is not pro-American. It is a morality about some Americans being called to high purpose and how they rose to the occasion. It is inspiring because it is about people of noble purpose.To me, the most interesting part of the film is the education of Fanny and David Farrelly (Bette Davis' mother and brother). As Fanny says, "We've been shaken out of the magnolias."In today's political climate where, led by a president who shamelessly lied to us and used 9/11 to bring out the absolute worst characteristics of human beings, we sunk to the level of the 9/11 murderers to seek blood-thirsty vengeance. It can't all be blamed on Mr. Bush - after all, we allowed him to lead us in that direction and even re-elected him after his lies had been exposed. Now, with complete justification, we Americans are reviled throughout the world.Today, we watch this film with a new awareness: That the rise to power of Nazis in Germany was not due to a flaw in the German character, but, a flaw in human beings that allows us to rationalize anything that will justify our committing immoral and heinous acts. I'm not comparing George Bush to Adolph Hitler. But, I am pointing out how a leader can whip us up into a frenzy of terror, hatred, and hyper-nationalism to do despicable things.Sadly, the blackmailer, who will do whatever needs to be done for his own agrandizement, no matter how immoral, is most like the leaders of our country, those who support them, and those who have buried their heads so deep in the sand, that they can't even be bothered to vote.A film like Watch on the Rhine reminds us of what we once aspired to be - a force for the betterment of humanity - and that we have it in us to once again aspire to lofty goals.Geoff
| 1
|
train_1134
|
The only part lacking in this movie is Shue's part as the daughter wanting to follow in her "aunt's" footsteps as a daytime soap star. Otherwise it would be a perfect 10.It seems that every actor enjoyed their parts and overacting to fulfill their own enjoyment as well as the script - I have to wonder if a little ad lib'ing wasn't taking place in parts. It was well cast and there are some classic lines that will stick with you.It's a fantastic movie everyone should see at least once. I'd recommend not drinking anything that would sting coming out your nose.You'll definitely want to watch the last scene closely, 'Nurse Nan' has a little secret she'd rather not have shared with you.If you love daytime soaps or despise them, this move pokes fun in all the right places.
| 1
|
train_354
|
A group of model-caliber San Francisco women who have been friends since elementary school are suddenly being threatened and attacked by someone sending them bizarre Valentine's Day cards. Who is the killer and why is the killer after them? My rating will often change on subsequent viewings of a film--sometimes slightly up, sometimes slightly down. However, I can't remember another film where my rating has changed as drastically as it has for Valentine. The first time I watched it, upon its theatrical release, I thought it was pretty awful--I gave it a 4 out of 10, the equivalent of an "F" letter grade. Watching it for a second time last night, I can't remember what the heck I didn't like about it. I can only assume that maybe I was really in the wrong mood to watch it, or maybe I just didn't get it. In any event, I loved it this time, giving it a 9 out of 10, or an "A".It might sound ridiculous saying I didn't get a film like this, but there is something to get. Valentine is almost a comedy/horror. Director Jamie Blanks, who was also responsible for 1998's Urban Legend, takes the stereotypical teen horror formula that became so popular in the late 1990s in the wake of Scream (1996) and pushes most of the elements up a notch, making Valentine intentionally cheesy/campy almost to the point of absurdity (where absurdism is a positive stylistic term). On top of that, he gives us a film imbued with humorous commentary on romantic relationships. The humor is unusual in that it has the same exaggeratedly campy tone as the teen horror aspects. Most of the situations in the film, and the modus operandi of the villain, humorous or not, are tied in to the Valentine's Day theme.Many viewers will likely subtract points from the film for its various cliché-rooted but implausible scenarios and plot developments. However, in light of the above, the film is intentionally clichéd, implausible and ludicrous. It's as if Blanks is attempting (and mostly succeeding) to transcend the typical teen slasher by mocking/spoofing the conventions of the genre while also satirizing eros. That's the attraction to the irony of basing a horror film on Valentine's Day. It's an incongruity that is cleverly woven throughout the film, and that is itself at the heart of the slasher genre, making it prime fodder for Valentine's extravagant lampooning. Scream had a similar aim with its horror material, but the twist there was that the film was "self-aware". Valentine's Day is intentionally not self-aware; the viewer has to rely on contextual clues for satire. Lest some think I'm "reading too much" into the film, it's worthwhile to note that Blanks said in interviews that he "didn't want to just do another slasher film after Urban Legend" and producer Dylan Sellers said he wanted to do something "more adult".Other viewers may dislike the fact that Valentine's Day differs so much from its putative source material, the novel of the same name by Tom Savage. The novel's characters, setting and plot are very different from the film. Sellers has said, "While it was a fine book, I didn't think it was the right story for a film". So instead the novel, which is much dryer and more serious in tone, was used as a launching pad, a motif to create variations on for a horror/thriller story centered on Valentine's Day. While those facts won't help purists familiar with the book like the film, it's helpful to understand why the film has its divergent plot and attitude. It's probably better to look at the film as an independent entity with a similar theme.Blanks' direction is impeccable visually. Valentine's Day has a lush look throughout, with complex, deep colors, interesting sets, and good staging. Blanks is admirable for keeping his villain and attack scenes not too dark, with clearly conveyed action. He also directs his actors with aplomb, catalyzing often slyly humorous performances. David Boreanaz, as Adam Carr, is involved in many of the funniest moments.While Valentine's Day is no masterpiece, it's a very good horror/thriller film that seems strongly prone to misconceptions. If you watch it expecting something more tongue-in-cheek you may find yourself appreciating it a lot more.
| 1
|
train_24620
|
In what could have been an otherwise run of the mill, mediocre film about infidelity in the sixties (the subtle "free-love" period), the creators of this film pile on ridiculous scenario after ridiculous scenario and top it all off with a trite little cherry on top, happily ever after ending. At no time did I ever feel sympathy for Diane Lane or Anna Paquin in their troublesome middle-class care free life, nor did I feel for the emasculated Liev Shrieber. The story line plods along slowly to its predictable, pathetic conclusion and the only thing interesting and watchable about this film is the stunning Diane Lane topless. Here's a hint, it occurs about 30 minutes into the film. Fast forward to that part and skip the rest.
| 0
|
train_24385
|
I'll dispense with the usual comparisons to a certain legendary filmmaker known for his neurotic New Yorker persona, because quite frankly, to draw comparisons with bumbling loser Josh Kornbluth, is just an insult to any such director. I will also avoid mentioning the spot-on satire `Office Space' in the same breath as this celluloid catastrophe. I can, however, compare it to waking up during your own surgery it's painful to watch and you wonder whether the surgeons really know what they're doing. Haiku Tunnel is the kind of film you wish they'd pulled the plug on in its early stages of production. It was cruel to let it live and as a result, audiences around the world are being made to suffer.The film's premise if indeed it has one is not even worth discussing, but for the sake of caution I will. Josh Kornbluth, a temp worker with severe commitment-phobia, is offered a permanent job. His main duty is to mail out 17 high priority letters for his boss. But ludicrously, he is unable to perform this simple task. My reaction? Big deal! That's not a story
it's a passing thought at best - one that should've passed any self-respecting filmmaker by. The leading actor if you can call him that is a clumsy buffoon of a man, with chubby features, a receding, untamed hairline, and a series of facial expressions that range from cringe-making to plain disturbing. Where o where did the director find this schmuck? What's that you say
he is the director? Oh, my mistake. Playing yourself in your own embarrassment of a screenplay is one thing, but I suspect that Mr Kornbluth isn't that convincing as a human being, let alone an actor. Rest assured, this is by no means an aimless character assassination, but never before have I been so riled up by an actor's on-screen presence! My frustration was further confounded by his incessant to-camera monologues in between scenes. I mean, as if the viewer needs an ounce of intelligence to comprehend this drivel, Kornbluth insults us further by `explaining' the action (first rule of filmmaking: `dramatize exposition'
show, don't tell). Who does this guy think he is? He has no charisma, no charm, and judging by his Hawaiian shirts, no sense of style. His casting agent should be shot point blank!The supporting actors do nothing to relieve the intense boredom I felt, with but one exception. Patricia Scanlon puts in a very funny appearance as Helen the ex-secretary, who has been driven insane by her old boss, and makes harassing phone calls from her basement, while holding a flashlight under her face. This did make me chuckle to myself, but the moment soon passed and I was back to checking my watch for the remainder of the film.The film's title is also a misnomer. Haiku Tunnel has nothing to do with the ancient form of Japanese poetry. Don't be fooled into thinking this is an art house film because of its pretentious-sounding title or the fact that it only played in a handful of cinemas and made no money at the box office
there's a very good reason for that!
| 0
|
train_24043
|
Although I use this site quite frequently to see how other people rated what I think are challenging or just plain enjoyable films, after watching this "movie" on Film Four last night I felt compelled to write something down, even if it just helps cleanse me once again.The film was possibly the shallowest experience I've ever had - the main characters played by Danny Dyer (23? You sure?) and Gillian Anderson (who will always be Scully as Leonard Nimoy will always be Spock) had no real substance about them - I'm not sure if the first half-hour of the film didn't make the final cut but surely in a revenge movie you would like some empathy with the victims... here I couldn't care less. In fact, the only character I did seem to care about was the dog, with the stag coming a close second. And both animals out-acted Dire (sic) and Scully, who were quite frankly terrible. I guess though you're only as good as the script you are given, and I'd like to warmly thank the writers, the producers, the director and all of the cast for wasting 90 minutes of my life and some perfectly good electricity.
| 0
|
train_12719
|
it MIGHT have been a good movie if it had explored something more interesting rather than just the surface of a lesbian relationship if this was the meaning of the movie...it is quite predictable not mentioning that the two girls resemble the Russian group t.A.T.u....coincidence? i don't think so. There is nothing original in this movie to support it so they had to use something which is already famous.You know the recipe. The other actors...well,i just don't know what their role is supposed to be. Most of them are well - known people in Romania and i must mention some of them are not even actors(e.g.Mihaela Radulescu).SO to summarize it: "girl band tatty"+desperate/publicity needing "actors"+ a non-existing plot+ the occasion to use bad language in order to shock= Love sick....too bad...the idea was good,though...and i am seriously holding myself from commenting the title...
| 0
|
train_20198
|
Can I give this a minus rating? No? Well, let me say that this is the most atrocious film I have ever tried to watch. It was Painful. Boringus Maximus. The plot(?) is well hidden in several sub-levels of nebulosity. I rented this film with a friend and, after about thirty minutes of hoping it would get better, we decided to "fast forward" a little to see if things would get any better. It never gets better. This film about some dude getting kidnapped by these two girls, sounds interesting, but, in reality, it is just a bore. Nothing even remotely interesting ever happens. If you ever get the chance to watch this, do yourself a favor, try "PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE" instead.
| 0
|
train_6922
|
The picture is developed in 1873 and talks as Lin McAdam(James Stewart) and High Spade(Millard Michell)arrive to Dodge City looking for an enemy called Dutch Henry(Stephen McNally).The sheriff Wyatt Hearp(Will Ger)obligates to leave their guns.Both participate in an shot contest and Stewart earns a Winchester 73,the rifle greatest of the west but is robbed and starting the possession hand to hand(John McIntire,Charles Drake ,Dan Duryea).Meanwhile the starring is going on the vengeance.First western interpreted by James Stewart directed by Anthony Mann that achieved revive the genre during 50 decade. The film has an extraordinary casting including brief apparition of Rock Hudson and Tony Curtis,both newcomers. The picture is well narrated and directed by the magnificent director Anthony Mann who has made abundant classics western:Bend the river,Far country,man of Laramie,naked spur,tin star. Of course, all the essential elements western are in this film,thus,Red Indians attack,raid by outlaws,final showdown.The breathtaking cinematography by Greta Garbo's favourite photographer Willian Daniels. James Stewart inaugurated a new type of wage,the percentage on the box office that will imitate posteriorly others great Hollywood stars. Although the argument is an adaptation of ¨Big gun¨ novel of Stuart L.Lake and screenwriter is Borden Chase,is also based about real events because 4 July 1876 in Dodge City had a shot competition and the winner was rewarded with a Winchester 73 model 1873 with ability shoot 17 cartridges caliber 44/40 in few seconds.
| 1
|
train_9779
|
Three horror stories based on members of a transgressive Hindu cult that return home but changed in some way. In the first story our former cult member is now in an insane asylum and is visited by a reported who wants to find out about what went on at the cult. Somewhat slow going as story is told in flashbacks while the two sit on chairs and face each other. Reporter is particularly interested in what lead to the death of the participants. What seemed rather boring suddenly turns very exciting with a surprising twist in the story. Things get quite bloody.Second story has a violent young criminal visiting a psychiatrist for mandatory therapy. The patient seems to have some type of agenda but the psychiatrist is up to the task. Again, things slow down a bit and get weird. Then there's a strange twist in the story that is very well written and surprising.Final story deals with spiritual healer who claims to be able to remove the persons illness from them with his hands. One of the patients is a former cult member, so the successful healing gets more complicated. Again, we are surprised by a twist. Has a pretty gory scene in there.There some nice female full frontal nudity as well as male full frontal nudity for some reason. I found the stories to be very well written and the director succeeds entirely in setting up each story with its surprising twist and the gory aftermath.Note: review of the German DVD.
| 1
|
train_7130
|
Well, when before I saw this film I really wasn't sure whether it would be my cup of tea...how wrong I was! I thought that this was one of the best films I've watched for a very long time, a real family classic. The story of a young evacuee and his new 'foster' dad, this film ticks all the boxes. I've not read the book (maybe that's a good thing & meant I enjoyed the film more) but with regards to the story, I really can't think of any bad points, hence scoring it 10 out of 10 (and I hardly ever think anything warrants top marks!). By the time William proclaimed 'I CAN RIDE MY BIKE, DAD!' I was sobbing my heart out (anyone who's seen it will understand, I'm sure). Really heartwarming, and definitely recommended.
| 1
|
train_10332
|
Wilhelm Grimm (Alexander Knox) stands trial for Nazi crimes. Three witnesses give evidence - Father Warecki (Henry Travers), Wilhelm's brother Karl (Erik Rolf) and Wilhelm's former lover Marja (Marsha Hunt) - before Wilhelm speaks in his own defense. The film ends after the court sums up....The film is told in three flashback segments as each of the witnesses takes the stand. The story is mostly set in a small Polish village and memorable scenes include the village reaction to the death of Anna (Shirley Mills), who Wilhelm is accused of raping; the treatment of the Jewish villagers as they prepare to be moved to concentration camps; and the church service where Willie Grimm (Richard Crane) denounces his Nazi upbringing whilst mourning for his girlfriend Janina (Dorothy Morris), Marja's daughter, after she has been shot at a brothel.Throughout the film, Knox is unrepentant and is very convincing as a bitter, resentful and evil man. Martha Hunt has some powerful moments and matches him with her strength and Henry Travers is also very good in his role as a priest. This film delivers an effective story that stays with you once it has finished.
| 1
|
train_2332
|
"Imagine if you could bring things back to life with just one touch" As soon as I first heard that, my attention was locked on the Trailer, And after the First Episode I found my self in love with this show. A Modern day Fairy Tale that Brings my Spirits up and Holds my attention throughout the entire show. I think the Acting and Casting is just perfect, Each Character brings Something Unique to the show that adds to it's perfection. Even the one time Villains manage to overflow with A Unique sense, From the Bee Man to the Guy who can Swallow Kittens, they never seem to let me down. And the Deaths that would Normally lead to a Depressing Moment often end up being Purely Comical (Such as an Exploding Scratch & Sniff book)Even with the large amount of Crime shows we have now a days, Daisies is one of the few that really stands out from the rest, Being not just a Mystery but a love story, Comedy and a Fairy Tale with a hint of Drama all baked into one Wonderful pie.....err show.What really shocked me was the fact that it was on ABC, For Years I never had a reason to turn to ABC, But this brought me back each week with a Smile on my face. It was as if Pushing Daisies Brought ABC back to life for me. But just like that, after two seasons, A few Awards, A Large Fan Base and Positive Responses from Critics the show has been dropped. It seems as though Ned has Touched ABC again and forever killed it for me. I will always be a fan of this show though, And I Recommend this to anyone who likes a lot of talking and a lot of love from the shows they watch.
| 1
|
train_23692
|
I was not entirely impressed by this film. It was originally named Sin Eater and should have stayed that way considering that is all that was talked about for the last half of the film. I'm not even sure what the first 20 minutes of the film had to do with any of the rest of it. It was very slow and what was with picking Robocop (Peter Weller) as one of the main actors. That was a sad point.All in all I would say check this out if you are into things dealing with the Catholic religion but don't expect an Exorcist or Stigmata from this film. It will surely flop after a few days and word gets out.
| 0
|
train_14577
|
Needed an excuse to get out of the house while paint dried - left the movie after an hour to return and watch the paint dry.I don't recall ever walking out on a movie before, but I really tried to stay. The script was not up to the cast and just kept "going and going" badly - come on! Uma Thurman doing this stuff? Fairly lame special effects. These were older characters and actors doing superficial horny 20-something lives - just sort of annoying and wrong feeling.This review is base only on the first hour - it might have gotten better. I just had to get home and see if the paint dried a darker shade than when it went on.
| 0
|
train_9578
|
As others have mentioned, all the women that go nude in this film are mostly absolutely gorgeous. The plot very ably shows the hypocrisy of the female libido. When men are around they want to be pursued, but when no "men" are around, they become the pursuers of a 14 year old boy. And the boy becomes a man really fast (we should all be so lucky at this age!). He then gets up the courage to pursue his true love.
| 1
|
train_5411
|
I can't see the point in burying a movie like this in sulfuric sarcasm, when it is in no way intended to be anything more than a vehicle to entertain children and prepare them for the next line of merchandise to beg madly about. This is a fun movie. My children sat quietly through the entire thing and loved every minute of it. Granted, the villain is a bit over the top with his silly costume and maniacal laugher, but this is a lot more easier to take than the dark, gloomy, and very morbid Pokemon 3. My children have been watching Pokemon since it started and they are soon getting to the ages where they will "put off the childish things" and move on to others. I am glad that we got to enjoy this together.
| 1
|
train_23074
|
With the exception of FAMILY, this new season is worse than Season One. I can't imagine what they are thinking. As a fan of horror, can tolerate a lot of gore and mindless mayhem, but this series gets worse with each outing. I can't imagine how disheartening it must be for the actors and crew to go to work each day, toiling to churn out such crap. STORY! Is that too much to ask for? CHARACTER! How can we give damn about the fate of ANYONE in these stories? If we are not engaged, who cares if they get carved up or whatever? Almost every episode ends with mindless blood letting, going for gross out shock without any sense of revelation or conclusion or REASON why we have been subjected to an hour of bloodletting. Even Dante's effort this season had some disturbing sexist violence and wandered off to a pointless conclusion. Ironically, the production values and performances tend to be up to speed, while the content is utter crap. I have great hopes for Exec Producer's Garris's VALARIE UNDER THE STAIRS, but we shall see.
| 0
|
train_23884
|
From around the time Europe began fighting World War II, until the war's end, Hollywood (with significant prodding from the government) made tons of movies which were designed to try and get young men to enlist in the Army, by making the life of a serviceman appear "cool." This is by far the sloppiest, implying that the life of a soldier is devoid of work, you get the best food, and you get to lie around all day listening to Ann Miller on the radio. I am far too young to have participated in WWII, but I think that there was more to it than that. There is the barest cat's whisker of a plot, and a bunch of musical numbers featuring some of the day's leading acts.I think that by 1943, even the most naive of civvies knew that there was more going on overseas than the wacky hijinks portrayed in this movie. While I am sure that it was meant to be viewed as escapist entertainment, I can't help but wonder if the family and loved ones of men fighting in the war, were amused or repulsed by this trivialization of their loved ones' sacrifice.
| 0
|
train_19758
|
This grainy film has a cult following and one of those word-of-mouth features you just had to see. Maybe hard to believe, but there is a rural community in southwest Arkansas, Fouke, that knows the legend is true. This tale is told in documentary-style narrated by Vern Stierman and filmed in actual locations talking to actual folks involved. The legend changes with the telling, but during the late 60s and most of the 70s the surrounding area of Fouke was visited by a Bigfoot-like creature that traveled along Boggy Creek. Long limbed with three toes and standing over 7 foot tall, this hirsute creature periodically caused damage and frightened the 'bejeebers' out of most of the community. I personally crossed over the small Boggy Creek bridge in 1974, and yes the hair on the back of my neck did rise. Of course it was about 1 a.m. in the rain. By the time I arrived in Shreveport, I was laughing.
| 0
|
train_18183
|
From the beginning of the movie I had a feeling like its a movie about another Jason's from Friday the 13th. And It is... Dispute that the movie starts interesting. But as the times goes by its just a pointless movie about muted, supernatural, silent serial killer. I mean he goes under the guy's bed without making any sound, not seen by anyone. He was supposed to be blind after failed execution but he walks and kills people like he used to. I'm tired of it. For me it's all over the same thing.In another words - unreal. Too many mistakes and confusing information.Well scene with tide up woman looked impressive but just at first time :} For that and for intriguing intro 2 stars.
| 0
|
train_14874
|
Actually, they don't, but they certainly did when trying to think of a singular line that adequately summarises how terrible this entry in the series really is. There were some moments that could have been good, but they are mostly outweighed by their own conversion into missed opportunities, and don't get me started on the bad.The wasted opportunities are pretty obvious, but I will recap them here in case anyone cares. Anyone who hasn't seen the film and genuinely gives a toss would be advised to stop reading at this point. The first, and potentially the biggest, wasted opportunity, was the plot with Freddy's long-lost child. Now, the extreme mental illness that Freddy appears to suffer (and I might hasten to add that less than one percent of mental patients are a threat to other people, leave alone to this extent) is HEREDITARY, so why not a mystery-type slasher in which Lisa Zane's character dreams of Freddy murdering the teens, only we later discover it's actually her doing all the killing? Sound like a good plot idea to you? Obviously it was above the heads of Talalay and De Luca.Then there's the trip to Springfield, where the entire adolescent population has been wiped out, and the remaining adults are experiencing a kind of mass psychosis. Funnily enough, said mass psychosis was actually depicted in a realistic and convincing manner, although this has a fair amount to do with the fact that we are never shown too much. We are just given quick visual hints of the massive loss of connection with reality that would stem from the grief of every youngster in town dying for reasons beyond one's comprehension and control. The essential problem with this plot element, however, is that the town is abandoned too quickly, and with no real answers. This collection of scenes would have been far creepier with ten minutes of say... one sane citizen explaining to these visitors why the Springfield fair looks like a horror show.Of course, horror films are never noted for their character development, unless they're the kind of horror films John Carpenter used to direct, but how are we supposed to really care when characters we know next to nothing about die? At least Wes Craven took the time to set up his characters in the original, and used a few cheap tricks to draw the audience in. That, in a nutshell, is probably the biggest problem with Freddy's Dead: it just doesn't try at all, leave alone hard enough.On a related note, I feel kind of sorry for Robert Englund, now that he is more or less inextricably linked with the Freddy character. He has played far better characters in far better productions (the science-fiction miniseries "V", for example), and to be forever remembered as "the man who played Freddy" is selling him rather short. It seems he will never break the mold of horror films now. As for the rest of the cast, well, I think their performances here speak for themselves. They deserved to be permanently typecast as little more than B-grade horror props. Even Yaphet Kotto doesn't escape this one unscathed, as his character is one of the most childishly written in the history of B-films.All in all, Freddy's Dead gets a 1 out of me. I'd vote lower, but the IMDb doesn't allow for that. FD is really a testament to how a writer's inability to exploit a concept to the fullest extent can ruin not only a film, but an entire franchise.
| 0
|
train_11595
|
My favorite movie. What a great story this really was. I'd just like to be able to buy a copy of it but this does not seem possible.
| 1
|
train_10128
|
Here it is.. the first EVER episode of Friends, Where we get introduced to Control Freak Monica Gellar (Courtney Cox), Newly divorced Ross Gellar (David Schimmer), Hippy Pheobe Buffay (Lisa Kudrow), unknown actor and ladies man (Matt Le Blanc and very sarcastic Chandler Bing (Matthew Perry). This is how the scene starts off until we introduced to the 6th and final friend Spoilt kid Rachel Green (Jennifer Aniston).The Episode is better than most people give credit for, like any new sitcom the first episode isn't always fantastic. The acting in this episode isn't great because the cast cannot identify and arnt really believable in their new characters (apart from Kudrow and Perry- who shine).Matt Le Blanc- Man, his acting was down right dreadful because until later, he gets more confident, but i think he tries to be funny but at most fails.David Schimmer- Why does he over pronounce EVERY word? he cannot speak normally! but he became one of the funniest characters in later seasons, but he isn't confident. and i cannot sympathise with him Jennifer Aniston- Looks hot, and does a good job as Rachel Green, but we only see the real Rachel later in the 1st season, Courtney Cox- Looks quite anorexic in this episode, its worrying, she looks totally different now, (more healthily), she acting is a little sketchy but everyones is in this 20 minute pilot! Lisa Kudrow and Matthew Perry- I'm doing these two together because their comic timing and acting quality was superb, and for Lisa this was one of her first roles and she is so natural as Pheobe (Pheebs) and Matthew Perry is just Matthew Perry playing himself basically! The episode quality does improve later,,, such as the Sets, they looks dark and creepy in this episode and makes them seem unfriendly, the acting is OK, the characters gain confidence with each new scene and i am proud this is the pilot! I hope we see the Friends reunite! cause they will always be there for us!
| 1
|
train_20550
|
just below the surface lies what? a simply awful movie is what.as other viewers have justifiably commented, the storm sequences are just plain ridiculous. chopping already sodden firewood in the pouring rain? now that's smart. menace? foreboding? sexual tension? for those read dull & contrived, dull & contrived and dull & overly contrived.i want to say thank god for mia sara's shower scene but in retrospect i think the producers of the film, having seen the completed mess realised that they had to put something in to make it half way worthwhile at all. so it just becomes yet another contrivance. do yourself a favour and give this a miss.
| 0
|
train_16074
|
I simply could not finish this movie. I tuned out after what I would say is my nomination for the most wretched attempt at sexual suggestion award: a scene in which Pia Zadora, at a picnic, stands between two boys who want her. One (the good boy) pleads for her to see the error of her ways. The other (the bad boy) simply asks if she'd like a hot dog, which he then holds out for her. At crotch level. I hope I'm not spoiling anything to say she turns, and takes the hot dog, with a smile. Just pathetic.
| 0
|
train_3040
|
Gregory Peck's brilliant portrayal of Douglas MacArthur from the Battle of Corregidor in the Philippines at the start of the Pacific War largely through to his removal as UN Commander during the Korean War offers reason to believe all three of the above possibilities. Certainly the most controversial American General of the Second World War (and possibly ever) MacArthur is presented here as a man of massive contradictions. He claims that soldiers above all yearn for peace, yet he obviously glories in war; he consistently denies any political ambitions, yet almost everything he does is deliberately used to boost himself as a presidential candidate; he obviously believes that soldiers under his command have to follow his orders to the letter, yet he himself deliberately defies orders from the President of the United States; he shows great respect for other cultures (particularly in the Philippines and Japan) and yet is completely out of touch with his own country. All these things are held in balance throughout this movie, and in the end the viewer is left to draw his or her own conclusions about the man, although one is left with no doubt that MacArthur sincerely and passionately loved his country, and especially the Army he devoted his life to.Peck's performance was, as I said, brilliant - to the point, actually, of overshadowing virtually everyone else in the film (which is perhaps appropriate, given who he was portraying!) with the possible exception of Ed Flanders. I though he offered a compelling look at Harry Truman and his attitude to MacArthur: sarcastic (repeatedly referring to MacArthur as "His Majesty,") angry, frustrated and finally completely fed up with this General who simply won't respect his authority as President. Marj Dusay was also intriguing as MacArhur's wife Jean, devoted to her husband (whom she herself referred to as "General," although their relationship seems to have been a happy enough one.) I very much enjoyed this movie, although perhaps would have liked to have learned a little more about MacArthur's early life. I have always chuckled at MacArthur's reaction to Eisenhower being elected President ("He'll make a fine President - he was the best damn clerk I ever had" - which seems to sum up what MacArthur thought the role of the President should be, especially to his military commanders during wartime.) Well worth watching. 8/10
| 1
|
train_1953
|
Since this movie was based on a true story of a woman who had two children and was not very well-off, it was just scary as to how real it really was! The acting is what gave the movie that push to greatness.Diane Keaton portrayed the main character, Patsy McCartle who had two sons whom she adored. Her performance is what made the real life story come to life on a television screen. It was very hard to watch some of the scenes since they were so real as to what happens when one becomes addicted to drugs.Just watching this very loving mother go from sweet to not caring at all was hard, but so true. I have known people who have gone through withdrawl and it was very much like what happened in this movie, from what I remember.I also thought that it was very risky for the director to want to make a movie out of what happened to this woman. Yet it was done so well. I applaud the director for making this movie.I highly recommend this to anyone who has known someone who has ever been addicted to drugs or to just learn what can happen to you if you do become addicted to them.
| 1
|
train_10468
|
Monstervision was a show I grew up with. From late night hosting with Penn and Teller to the one, the only, Joe Bob Briggs. The show kept me up Friday nights back in my high school years, and provided some of the best drive-in memories to ever come outside of the drive-in.Without a doubt, the best late night television ever. If you didn't stay up, you were missing out.I know John Bloom and Joe Bob live on, but I want them back where they belong...MONSTERVISION! Question...did anyone else sit through all 4 hours of "The Swarm" ? q:)Long live Monstervision!
| 1
|
train_2131
|
This is a movie that gets better each time I see it. There are so many nuanced performances in this. William Tracey, as Pepi, is a delight, bringing sharp comic relief. Joseph Schildkraut as Vadas, is the only "villian" in the movie, and his oily charms are well used here. Frank Morgan, is delightful as the owner of the title shop, Mr. Matuschek, and his familiar manner is well used here. I especially liked the performance of Felix Bressart, as Pirovitch. Very believable in every facet of his role.The two leads are equally accomplished, with Margaret Sullivan doing an outstanding job of portraying a slightly desperate, neurotic, yet charming and attractive woman.This movie belongs to Jimmy Stewart though. The movie is presented from his point of view, with the action rotating around him. Mr. Stewart is more then up to the task of carrying the movie, with an amazing performance that uses a wide range of emotions. Just watch Stewart, when he is fired from his job, because of a misunderstanding. He is able to convey the shock, anger, fear and embarrassment that so traumatic an event causes, so perfectly. In my estimation, James Stewart is, without question, the greatest film actor in the history of the medium. There is no one else that has ever been captured on film that is able to so completely convey what he is feeling to an audience. At the time he made this movie, he still had most of his career ahead of him, yet he is completely the master of his craft. This is one of Jimmy Stewarts best movies, and also one of the sweetest, most enjoyable romantic comedies you will find. I greatly recommend this movie, especially for those that appreciate the work of Stewart.
| 1
|
train_4592
|
Jackie Chan's Police Story is a landmark film for both the Honk Kong action genre and the career of Jackie Chan.Directed/written by Chan, Police Story has a basic plot as did all the films of that era and genre, and like most of the the films of Police Storys' kind, the script is nothing to be raved about. But the plot of the film is Jackie Chan, who plays a nice guy cop, struggling to convict the local gang lord.The direction of the film is nothing special and by no means the best directing effort that Jackie Chan has given us, that responsibility falls to the underrated masterpiece "Miracles". However the job that Jackie does directing is sufficient and respectable. The standout out directing of the film comes with the fight scenes.The performances in this film also vary with Jackie giving a very solid typical Chan nice guy up against it role, but this is by no means his best acting role, that can been seen in the Sammo Hung directed film "Heart of the Dragon". The other actors in the film also give as good a solid performance as Jackie with Bridgete Lin playing her part of the unwilling witness reasonably well, but neither does she display full acting potential. The standout acting comes from Maggie Cheung as Jackies' suffering girlfriend and Bill Tung as the sympathetic and funny police chief. None of the performances in this film is of a low enough standard to affect the quality of the film. The action in the film is what really separates this film from others with stunning contemporary choreography to suit the urbanised, modern setting, the action is some some of the greatest fight scenes ever put on camera. To begin with there is a shootout in the slum where Koo (ganglord) is making a drug deal, whilst being no John Woo style sequence, this serves as a nice starter for the film. This is then followed by the famous car run down the side of the hill and through the heart of the slum wrecking everything in sight. This is a breathtaking sequence that has since been shamelessly copied by Bad Boys 2. In the middle of the film is yet another standout sequence as Jackie tries to transport Bridgete Lin from her house to his. This is really the first scene where we get to see the awesome fast paced hand to hand combat that has since become the norm for all modern set martial art films. This sequence is fantastically choreographed, timed and seamlessly edited together to maximise the brutality of the scene. However, as tradition dictates, the standout fight sequence is at the end of the film. This sequence displays some of Chans' best choreography, stunts and camera/editing work. This sequence is now famous for two things, the amount of people sent through high density glass, which has to be said a phenomenal amount of people, and the stunt at the end where Jackie leaps from a 5th storey balcony, grabs hold of a pole and slides down through a glass roof (this has to be seen to be believed). Whilst the two for-mentioned factors are both uniquely brilliant, i think that the most impressive part of this fight sequence is Chans' ability to incorporate anything into the fight sequence and the sheer originality of the choreography, that for me has never been bettered. I also believe that the action in Police Story is some of the best filmed and edited action of Chans career helping to set the action apart from others.Overall, Police Story, despite its unspectacular storyline and script and over running in the middle due to plot padding, is one of the best action films of all time displaying Chans best choreography, best filmed action and arguably his most spectacular stunt making this essential viewing for everyone. Afterall, we watch a Chan movie for the action!!
| 1
|
train_16555
|
I've read reviews that apparently you have to have been a student in a very strict, British school in the 1960's to understand this. Maybe that's true, if so, then this movie is outdated.*************SPOILER ALERT**************************************** The ending makes about as much sense as all the kids who're anti-government and anti-corporation without having any better solution that doesn't torch society to a Mad Max type cinder.Yeah, the main characters could leave, but they don't. The reasons they go about this don't make sense. There isn't enough character development to explain why. What shooting up a bunch of innocent people is supposed to mean is never explained or even hinted at. It is mentioned that war is the final creative expression, quite possibly the only revelation that any characters of this movie have, and it makes no sense.The characters who go on a murder spree aren't fighting the institution, they're just killing people. I thought they might've used all the explosives to blow up the place or at least the sanctuary at the end, that would've made greater symbolic sense, but they didn't.tl;dr - This movie is an adolescent's daydream of fighting against authority that plagues them, though in reality they need. It has no moral, symbolic truth, or meaning to it; this movie simply plays out the fantasy of killing teachers and people in "power" that annoy you.If you think a murder rampage/ school shooting similar to columbine or virginia tech is a rational and sensible way to deal with teachers and institutions you don't like, then I guess you'll love this movie. If you're like me and you're working towards making a life for yourself instead of just blindly (very blindly in this movie) rebelling against "the man", this movie is juvenile and boring.You can also tell in parts that funding was lacking, and the story seemed to have a touch of attention deficit disorder.All in all, this seems like a very rough draft of what could've been an okay movie, but no effort is put into the dialogue, character development, or moral so it's just... poorly done.If... only I could get my two hours back.
| 0
|
train_12697
|
While being a great James Arness western, this film has gone down as the worst Alamo film ever made. The story was terrible, inaccuracy all through it, and just downright untruths to boot! Continuity was cast to the four winds. Anybody catch the cannon sequence? The Mexicans were dumb enough to fire cannons that obviously had mud and ramrods still sticking out of the tubes. Come on! Then there is Brian Keith's ridiculous hat! Costumer must of been away or something. Or just out of their mind!
| 0
|
train_5394
|
I was absolutely mesmerised by this series from the moment Tom Long walked into shot - the whole 'bad boy' thing, it was just addictive.The story has you hooked, what will happen next - will Joey get the girl in the end, after doing 5 years in prison, and all that time thinking about his lost love, crossing paths with her again, finding he has a son... Although he is a violent bad guy, you still want him to find happiness.A truly captivating two parter - please bring it out on video!
| 1
|
train_10585
|
Footlight Parade is among the best of the 1930's musical comedy extravaganzas. A snappy script and an all-star cast including Jimmy Cagney, the lovely Joan Blondell, Dick Powell, and Ruby Keeler make this film a cut above the rest. Directed and choreographed by the creative genius Busby Berkeley, this film will have you grinning from ear-to-ear from start to finish.Busby, of course, is the undisputed master of the Hollywood musical with "Gold Diggers of 1933" and "42nd Street" to his credit (as Dance Director). Footlight Parade is graced by hundreds of scantily-clad chorus girls, a Berkeley trademark. The elaborate dance numbers were shot with only one camera and Busby was the first director to film close-ups of the dancers. His obsession with shapely legs and "rear-view" shots is amply demonstrated here. The overall effect is highly erotic and mesmerizing.Our boy Jimmy Cagney plays Chester Kent, a producer of "prologues" or short musical stage productions that were performed in movie theaters to entertain the audience before the talkies were shown. He's surrounded by crooked partners, a corporate spy, and a gold-digging girlfriend. Although Cagney had a solid background in vaudeville, this was the first film in which he showed his dancing talents. Joan Blondell is memorable as Cagney's wise-cracking, lovestruck secretary. And Ruby Keeler is adorable, as always.The film climaxes with three outstanding production numbers, "Honeymoon Hotel", "The Waterfall", and "Shanghai Lil", each one a masterpiece and not likely to be duplicated in today's Hollywood where so-called "special effects" have replaced creative cinematography.Claudia's Bottom Line: Clever and erotic, with some of the best musical production numbers ever put on celluloid. A thoroughly enjoyable Depression era romp.
| 1
|
train_11629
|
Red Eye is a thrilling film by the creator of Freddy Kreuger, Wes Craven. Wes Craven depicts the story of a regular hotel worker Lisa. After attending the funeral of her grandmother, she decides to take the red eye flight. During waiting, she meets this man named Jack Rippner, (how fffrreeaakkyy is that?) and they sort of become friends. Ironically, both sit right next to each other on this plane. Then this is when the horror starts. This movie is thrilling and to the weak hearted people who don't like thrilling/horror films, well lets say that its possible that they might pee in their pants. This is an excellent example of a bone shaking production. Wes Craven did well with this film. He chose the right actors, like Rachel McAdams, an intelligent, sexy girl who knows what she's doing and is cautious of everything when she's acting in a film. Cillian Murphy, the scary and horrifying actor who can chill your bones at his amazing acting being the bad character in this film, and his face can really widen your eyes. Wes Craven did an excellent job and I hope that he makes more films like this one.
| 1
|
train_737
|
It's amazing that actress P.J. Soles didn't become a big star after playing Riff Randall, #1 fan of the punk rock group the Ramones, in "Rock 'n' Roll High School". Soles is so exuberant, you don't mind she's obviously too old to still be in high school (that fact is leveled out by having all the kids look 24). The movie is a fast-paced frolic that doesn't cop-out; everything gets blown to smithereens at the end, and that's just as it should be. Mary Woronov, an innately kinky and funny presence as the Nazi-like principal, gets a great, one-of-a-kind bit at the beginning where Frisbees fly dangerously close to her head (how many takes did they use on that, or was it a fluke?) and Dey Young is very appealing as Soles' best, Kate Rambeau. The weakest link, ironically enough, in this "High School" chain-gang is the Ramones. They can't act, they're not funny, and their concert segment goes on too long. One Ramones song, "I Want You Around", is treated as a fantasy and is well captured; other incidental songs are good, particularly a rare Paul McCartney ballad heard near the beginning ("Did We Meet Somewhere Before?"). Great fun! *** from ****
| 1
|
train_24766
|
Republic pictures comes late in the game to the "werewolf" er Werecat genre. The plot has a writer returning to Paris after a long trip abroad during which he developed jungle fear during which he had blackouts. He is arriving to great acclaim as his novel that parallels an infamous trial is a best seller. The French government wants to know if he had access to secret documents, something that seems more likely when an official is killed by a "catman". Suspicion really falls on the writer when his fiancé ends up dead. Complicating matters is the return of the blackouts so the writer doesn't know if he's the killer or not.Okay thriller is much too leisurely to be fully enjoyed. There are too many musical numbers early on and too much dead time when things are all talk in the middle and later sections. The acting is fine and the sets quite good but there is a reason why most people I know only remember the top hatted killer, he's the most interesting thing in this film. despite its short running time (just over an hour) I think the reason that this film was rarely seen on TV was that after 20 minutes you begin to lose patience with it. As good as the talk is, I just wished someone would do something. When it finally did happen, in the closing minutes, it was too little too late..Take a pass.
| 0
|
train_15171
|
**MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**The titular topless heroine rescues another beautiful babe and her father (an eccentric professor whose stock pith helmet is broken in one shot and whole in the next) from a moth-eaten, dime-store mummy and nasty Nazis out to--what else?--build a Fourth Reich. Misty's costume, like those of some other wimmen, gets skimpier as the movie rolls on. The last portion of the movie is devoted to protracted lesbian action; this footage actually gets real boring, real fast, which says more about the critters behind the camera than the curvaceous creatures in front of it. MISTY gets its nominal plot out of the way first and fast, then gives undivided attention to nudity and soft-core sex. This makes MUMMY RAIDER a throwback to movies made in the 1960s by guys like Stan Borden, David F. Friedman and Harry Novak. Just think: if this wonder-work had been cranked out four decades ago, it would have played for years on 42nd Street along with WHAM BAM THANK YOU SPACEMAN and KISS ME QUICK. As it is, MISTY MUNDAE MUMMY RAIDER went straight to home video. Grab yours, quick, before it goes out of print.
| 0
|
train_3668
|
I recently saw this film and enjoyed it very much. it gives a insight to indie movie making and how much work is really involved when you have a low budget yet need a name actor/actress to get people, any people to come see it and give the movie exposure. Bobby Myeres played by Modine and his partner Saul - Paul Linder make an excellent combination finding eccentric Miachel Bates, a "NAME" actor played by Alan Bates was a perfect casting decision in the movie and for the movie. My favorite cast member was Sandy Ryan played by the magnificent and underrated Debra Kara Unger with her own special performance again in the movie within the movie. If you enjoy thinking when watching a comedy then this one is for you. Low budget meets lower budget with High laugh content.
| 1
|
train_11576
|
It tries to be the epic adventure of the century. And with a cast like Shô Kasugi, Christopher Lee and John-Rhys Davies it really is the perfect B-adventure of all time. It's actually is a pretty fun, swashbuckling adventure that, even with it's flaws, captures your interest. It must have felt as the biggest movie ever for the people who made it. Even if it's made in the 90s, it doesn't have a modern feel. It more has the same feeling that a old Errol Flynn movie had. Big adventure movie are again the big thing in Hollywood but I'm afraid that the feeling in them will never be the same as these old movies had. This on the other hand, just has the real feeling. You just can't hate it. I think it's an okay adventure movie. And I really love the soundtrack. Damn, I want the theme song.
| 1
|
train_9428
|
One of my favorite movies to date starts as an adventure through the wild side of a team of four men from Atlanta. The idea of living the Chulawasse river before it's turned into a lake comes from Burt Reynold's Lewis, who unconsciously drowns his fellas into their worst nightmare. But if the first half of the film appears rather like an action movie, the second half carries the viewer into a totally different story, with our men forced to make a decision that (they know) will change their lives forever. In very bad ways. At the end of the movie, each person is gonna be forced to deal with the scars of what had just to be a quite week-end on the river but muted into a fight for survival. The movie (except some pretty evident goofs) is very well directed and beautifully shot into a paradise of nature that steals your breath. The photography is excellent as well. Voight, Reynolds, Cox and Beatty are all excellent in showing how a single event can ruin in different ways four different lives only tied to the same mistake.
| 1
|
train_13274
|
This movie appears to have been made by someone with some good ideas but who also never had made a movie before nor had they considered that a script should be edited or even funny. When I saw this film, I saw it for John Candy and assumed, incorrectly, that it would be hilarious. Instead, there was a stupid plot about mind control and so many flat, unfunny moments. And, to top it off, Candy delivered some of the crudest lines I had ever heard up to that time. So, despite a potentially funny cast and story idea, we are left with an amateurish and crude movie that will probably be too stupid for the average adult, though teens will probably find a few laughs. It's really a shame--it could have been so much better. I mean, with Eugene Levy, Joe Flaherty and John Candy it SHOULD have been wonderful.
| 0
|
train_1884
|
This is one of my favorite comedies ever. Not wanting to condone the uninspiring lifestyle of its hero, but taken for what it's worth and not as trivializing alcoholism, the movie is simply a lot of fun. It tells the unlikely tale of a perpetually drunk, irresponsible 40 something bachelor named Arthur who is set to inherit a vast fortune, but only if he marries Susan, chosen because the family thinks she might make something of him. Arthur proposes, but then unwisely falls for Linda, a waitress and petty thief.Dudley Moore is perfect as Arthur, the world's most endearing drunk, whose antics are a laugh a minute. Admittedly, Moore IS Arthur and I agree with those who can imagine no other actor in the role. The ladies of the piece are also well portrayed. Liza Minnelli sparkles as Linda, and her on screen chemistry with Moore is great. Jill Clayburgh plays Susan, the wealthy and more appropriate woman chosen for Arthur. However, this film is literally made by Sir John Gielgud, who portrays Arthur's sarcastic but moral butler, Hobson. It's obvious these two have had a great mutual affection during Hobson's longtime employment. Hobson is Arthur's best friend and purveyor of unsolicited commentary and advice. The most interesting relationship in this film is not Arthur's romance at all, but his unusual rapport with this witty and of course perpetually disapproving servant. It's the butler you'll remember best long after the closing credits roll.
| 1
|
train_4503
|
This zippy and fun short from 1916 - the time when Charlie Chaplin and Fatty Arbuckle were the big names in comedy - features the young Oliver Hardy as a ne'er-do-well who has to quickly impress his wealthy uncle by producing a wife and baby for his visit.Of course this does not go smoothly and soon there are rather more wives and babies than he can cope with; plus the mandatory chases and misunderstandings that are the hallmark of early movie slapstick.Restored well it can be viewed as part of 'The Early Films of Oliver Hardy' and is now available on DVD, a fine addition to the available corpus of the big screen favourite comedy duo.
| 1
|
train_12508
|
6/10 Acting, not great but some good acting.4/10 Director, makes some stupid decisions for this film.2/10 Writer, story makes no sense at all and has huge amount of flaws.4/10 Overall score for this movie.Don't waste your time with this film, it's not worth it. I gave 4 for this movie and it may be too much. Characters are so over exaggerated than they can ever be in real life and some pretty unexplainable stuff happens "storywise", not in good way. Because of the style this film has been filmed you get bored after 30 minutes (too many special effects: slow motions and camera shakes and fast forwards). It's always good that movie uses music to make the story go smooth but there's too many tracks in this one. In the first hour there is almost 50/50 dialogs and musics
| 0
|
train_7176
|
OK - you want to test somebody on how comfortable they are with their adolescence and the embarrassing and maniacal changes therin - then get their immediate reaction from watching this uproarious doc about kids making socially relevant horror flicks in the suburban 80's. More than any movie I has ever seen, the film deals with burdening sexuality and ego in a way that is completely human, never dull, and flushed in the kind of inherent goodness of youth that is discolored by the fear-frenzied adult world where any quirk in youth is accredited to anything from insanity to perversion. Mini-mogul Darren Stien seems to be reaching for a deeper understanding of his triumphs and misgivings as the patriarch of strict kid's world. What he finds in himself and others isn't always pretty - but shows how one can improve and reconcile with age. What does change mean without reflection. I love this movie.
| 1
|
train_21807
|
I rented this film about a month ago when I had nothing else to do on a Friday night. All I can say to describe this worthless film is 'TRASH' The acting is so badly done I've seen kids in high school do a better job The whole cast seems like they're just reading their lines out, no feeling, no emotion, and no room to capture the viewer. On another note the special effects were insanely cheesy and the whole thing looked like it had been shot with a camera anyone can buy a radio shack.The clown himself looks nothing like the one on the video cover. Heck he doesn't even show up in the film until near the end and all he does it hum songs and go around stalking a few characters. There is no real murder shown either so this isn't a real slasher film either Since I've seen it I've questioned a few things 1. If is 'Serial Insane Clown Killer' Wouldn't that be a Serial Killer who kills clowns? 2. If your friend goes missing why would you go out into the woods to have sex rather than look for her? Sad really.3. Why is it that the only REAL acting sputtered vainly out at the end all of a sudden? Did the cast finally decide to show effort in their jobs? This film is as sad as they come. My advice is to avoid renting it lest you waste an hour or two of your time laughing more than screaming.
| 0
|
train_16692
|
In this short an urban man and his wife have their weird lives set akimbo when the man takes to wearing an old red pants suit of his mother in law's.I kept watching this hoping that I could see why it had been made, or why the other reviewers found it funny. For me it was a total waste of time.Not everyone's tastes are the same but this was clearly not to mine.
| 0
|
train_7413
|
Shower keeps within itself in so many ways. Almost all of the movie takes place in an old- time bathhouse, with the denizens supplying the humor, pathos, and emotional touches. The love and friendship between the proprietor and his retarded son is deep and moving. The way the older brother is drawn into this tiny world seems unforced and persuasive. The plot is meandering, full of surprises and ironies, and touched overall by a sense of what I'd have to call neighborliness in the relations and conflicts of the performers. This is a film I pull out when I want to believe in the world again.
| 1
|
train_23567
|
I'm a big fan of the true crime genre, but I couldn't sit through this putrid piece. It was almost as if Dahmer was intended as erotica, down to the porn-flic soundtrack. There was no look at what made Dahmer tick, no exploration of who his victims were. Nothing but "Look at how creepy this guy is." And I have to give the filmmakers this much -- their Dahmer is the creepiest thing ever to disgrace the screen.
| 0
|
train_19256
|
Devin Hamilton is probably better known as the new name in legendary Full Moon entertainment. Sadly, his arrival to this independent studio happened in a time when budget and production values are at its lowest in years. However, in his short career Hamilton has established himself as a creative director that manages to make inventive and original stories. Now, this doesn't mean that his movies are good, but at least they are different to the usual in the horror genre.In his debut, "Bleed", Hamilton presents us a creative twist on the slasher sub genre. Maddy (Debbie Rochon) is a young woman that finally gets the job of her dreams. Not only that, but it seems that she has also found a boyfriend in Shaun (Danny Wolske), it seems that life finally smiles for Maddy after many sad events. Until on a party with Shaun's friends, they tell her that they created a "club" where members have to kill somebody to enter.Obviously they are joking, but Maddy wants desperately to fit in, that she actually murders someone. After that event, someone starts to kill the rest of the members of the "club" one by one. it is up to Maddy to figure out what is going on as anybody could be the killer, including her.Maddy is a very interesting character wonderfully played by the beautiful Debbie Rochon. It is a very interesting twist on the genre to have the lead actress as part of the suspects. The concept is so original and Rochon's performance is so good that it is a real shame that Hamilton didn't develop the whole story a little bit better. The movie feels quite slow at times and overall the feeling is the one of a good idea wasted on a bad movie.The rest of the cast is weird in the sense that all the female cast is very good, while the male cast is painfully bad. Danny Wolske is terribly wooden and his performance as a yuppie is quite stereotypical. Julie Strain, Brinke Stevens & Lloyd Kaufman appear in small cameos and are wonderful in their small roles. Also, there is lots of nudity (both male & female) and the cast is very good looking, so it is really a plus.The low-budget hurts the film in the effects department, as there are very few gory scenes and are not really graphic (probably because they would look bad); nevertheless, considering the budget, the film at least looks good.Hamilton's more recent effort, the sexploitational venture "Delta Delta Die!", is a better crafted and overall funnier film. While this one is not as bad as other better known films, it still has a lot of flaws and may be interesting only for fans of Debbie Rochon or fans of independent no-budget films. 4/10
| 0
|
train_11023
|
The selection of Sylvester Stallone to perform the protagonist by Renny Harlin is commendable since Stallone is that sort of tough and craggy person who had earlier rendered the requisite audaciously versatile aura to the characters of Rocky Balbao and Rambo. But to compare Die Hard series with Cliffhanger is a far-fetched notion.The excellently crafted opening scene introduces the audience to the thrill, suspense and intrigue which is going to engulf them in the ensuing bloody and perilous encounter with the outlaws. The heist and the high altitude transfer of hard cash in suit cases from one plane to the other is something not filmed before.The biting cold of the snow capped Alps and the unfolding deceit and treachery among the antagonist forces makes one shiver with trepidation. The forces of awesome adventure and ruthless murder kicks the drama through to the end.Good movies are not made every year and people don't get a feast for eyes to watch every now and then. Apart from the filthy language/parlance which endows brazen excitement during certain scenes, the movie can be regarded as one that is not going to fade its captivating appeal even watching it after so many years.
| 1
|
train_770
|
I love Tudor Chirila and maybe that's why i enjoyed the movie so much. Two days before the movie premiere I went to see his concert. I saw the trailer and the video "zmeu" before the movie and I thought I had it all figured.. i was wrong: instead of a good movie i assisted a great one! i FELT the movie. it was sad.. it was funny.. but most of all it pictured LOVE.. I can't even begin to describe the soundtrack.. so i won't :) I'm not a movie critic.. I can't describe it in more words.. My kinda vague description is all because the play left me speechless.. thank god for the keyboard :) Thank you Tudor Giurgiu, thank you Maria Popistasu, thank you Ioana Barbu and THANK YOU TUDOR CHIRILA. Encore! :)
| 1
|
train_10353
|
This review contains spoilers for those who are not aware of the details of the true story on which this movie is based.The right to be presumed "Innocent until proven guilty" is a basic entitlement of anyone in a civilised society; but according to Fred Schepisi's partisan but sadly convincing story of a famous Australian murder trial, it was not granted to Lindy Chamberlain, accused of killing her baby. The story suggesting her innocence was unlikely (a dingo was alleged to have taken it), but those implying her guilt even more so, and there was no solid evidence against her. But the Australian public was transfixed by the possibility of her guilt, and the deeply religious Chamberlains appeared creepy when appearing in the media (and the media themselves, of course, were anything but innocent in this process). So although cleared by an initial inquest, they were later prosecuted and convicted. Although Chamberlain was eventually released, this shamefully only followed the discovery of new evidence "proving" their innocence, something no defendants should have to produce.'A Cry in the Dark' is well acted throughout, especially by Meryl Streep, who puts on a convincing Australian accent (at least to this Pom's ears) and manages keep Lindy sympathetic (to us) while still conveying how she managed to become a national hate figure. The scenes where she actually gets imprisoned are simple but heartbreaking, because we believe in the characters as real. Regardless of the accuracy of its portrayal of this story (something I can't comment on), the wider theme of this film will ring horribly true to anyone with a passing knowledge of the British popular press and its ruthless habit of appealing directly to their readership's least charitable instincts. No legal system will ever be perfect; but the current cry against asylum seekers in contemporary British tabloids comes from exactly the same pit of evil as the voices that put Lindy Chamberlain away. I'm not a religious man, but the Bible still contains some killer lines (if you'll excuse the pun). "Judge not lest ye be judged" is one of them.
| 1
|
train_20330
|
So far Nightmares and Dreamscapes has been erratic and disappointing. The first segment, directed by Brian Henson, may have offered little in the way of groundbreaking storytelling or real scares, but at least it was well-directed, suspenseful, and visually interesting, with solid acting by William Hurt and very impressive special effects for a mini-series.However, the second story in the series was just dreadful, and not in the good way. The screenplay is bad, requiring the shallow, unlikable protagonists to act illogically in order to move the plot, and having characters ramble on endlessly for the purposes of clunky, unnecessary exposition. The acting is overdone and unconvincing, and I felt far more empathy for a cold-blooded killer in the first story than for the newlywed couple in the second. The director used a million tricks to try to make the narrative spooky, but with the amateurish acting and writing, the end result looks like a freshman-year film school project, with camera moves for their own sake, and little in the way of plot or tension.If the rest of the series continues like this, I'll be sorely let down. I look forward to William H. Macy's installment, and hope he gets a decent director and screenwriter for his segment. So far the quality is far too inconsistent to predict either way.
| 0
|
train_18866
|
There was not one single redeeming factor in this movie. The girlfriend and I both love action films. Especially fight scenes (Bloodsport and Kickboxer was awesome), but this movie was not entertaining. Five minutes of action followed twenty minutes of talking and "angry" facial expressions. The main hero is a troubled character who has seen battle and thus is forced to look seriously constipated at all times. The Army has disrupted his bowel movements on top of perfecting his fighting technique. The music isn't good either. They fight to the rap and hip-hop style of the streets, 'cause these guys are thugs. The rest of the soundtrack is the usual background noise to low-budget dramas.Everything about this movie is classic B-style. The actors deliver their lines as if reading them from cue cards and the lines themselves should be set on fire and left burning in some rotten Hollywood alleyway. The film is called "Honor," but there was no honor in making this film. It was simply a waste of money, and spending wisely is something I consider to be honorable.Go see Felon instead. The fight scenes and situations are more real.
| 0
|
train_2100
|
Before she went into politics or public service, Glenda Jackson was one of Britain's finest film actresses. This film displays her talent despite having a supporting role in a stellar cast that includes Julie Christie as Kitty, the wife of a British Royal Captain who has lost his memory of the last 20 years, and Jenny played by American Ann-Margret in an almost unrecognizable role as the doting sister. Alan Bates plays the captain who suffers from memory loss triggered by the shell shock during World War I. Sir Ian Holm has a smaller role as the doctor treating him. You see familiar faces like Sheila Keith, Patsy Byrne, and Frank Finlay. You can't help but watch Glenda play a dowdy housewife and the first true love of the Captain but they came from different classes. It's not the greatest movie but it's good to see Glenda's amazing talent. She is still a fantastic actress, comedy or drama. She makes Margaret Grey into a likable character and you see why a regal captain fell in love with her.
| 1
|
train_18563
|
"Masters of Horror" has proved itself a poor arena for 'message episodes,' and while a definite case can be made for Joe Dante's 'Screwfly Solution' (one of the best episodes of the series, period), most efforts to do so have come across as anvil-heavy and unimpressive (nothing defuses horror more than a soapbox). And 'Pro-Life' simply fuses reactionary viewpoints with ultra-violence; young Angelique (Caitlin Wachs), seen running through the woods, is nearly hit by 2 doctors (Mark Feuerstein and Emmanuelle Vaugier) who just happen to be driving in to work at the local (and isolated) abortion clinic. Angelique's father, Dwayne (Ron Perlman), is a stone-cold, far-right holy roller who will do anything to prevent his daughter from getting an abortion. If for nothing else, 'Pro-Life' accumulated some buzz for its controversial issue, but John Carpenter treats this whole venture with startling indifference--he seems even less interested in making a movie than the script itself (which is admittedly poor); the slow pacing builds no tension, and simply brings the already ambling plot to a crawl. Even when Dwayne and his sons storm the clinic, guns blazing, it is a stunning non-event; later, when a doctor is tortured with a 'male abortion,' the scene comes off as gratuitous and unnecessary--an effort to pad out the underwritten film. The poor performances (Perlman is sadly wasted here) become an outgrowth of the script, and Carpenter's direction feels exhausted, as if 'Pro-Life' is the source of his next hot meal. By the time a spider-creature with a human head and a guy in a latex monster suit are prowling the hallways, you just have to wonder what the minds behind this mess were thinking...
| 0
|
train_23665
|
I mean, really... either i suddenly lost my sense of humor or this is just a really bad movie. It's stupid, ridiculous and just not funny AT ALL.Since i saw the preview i knew it wasn't going to be a great movie, i just didn't think it was gonna be that bad...What happened to the good old times when you could find clever funny lines at any movie? When the actors didn't have to play ridiculous roles in attempt to be funny?. Now we find ourselves with movies like this one, Borat, Little Men, Scary Movie 4 where i could not find the funny parts!!Just skip this piece of garbageP.S. (sorry for my English)
| 0
|
train_11270
|
Make no mistake, Maureen O'Sullivan is easily the most gorgeous Jane ever, and there will never be one more gorgeous. She is visually stunning. That aside, it takes more than a beautiful woman to make a good film. This is a great film. It not only has the classic Tarzan aura, but also the feel of the continuing saga. We become involved with the two white hunters who search for ivory, one of them in love with Jane, the other, a roguish catalyst whose character may be one of the best defined and best examined in movie history.And these characterizations are what make this great action flick stand out as a classic. There is the uncomfortable racism which is depicted. However, the Africans are depicted as individuals, and at the end, two even become more heroic than the white hunters, and stand out as such. In fact, the one not named evokes probably more sympathy from the audience than any other characters. The finale, also, is one of the reasons to enjoy this movie. The great lion attack has never been duplicated, and the horror is well implied with character reactions more so than a modern gore movie would do with graphic depiction. If I left anything out, it is because I do not want to soil the picture for those who haven't seen it. But it is everything you could want in a movie.
| 1
|
train_5639
|
I've read the other reviews and found some to be comparison of movie v real life (eg what it takes to get into music school), Britney Bashing, etc, etc. so let's focus on the movie and the message.I have rated this movie 7 out of 10 for the age range 8 to 14 years, and for a family movie. For the average adult male.... 2 out of 10.I like pop/rock music, i'm 45. I know of Britney Spears but never realised she actually sang Stronger until i read the credits and these reviews. I didn't recognise her poster on the wall so I was not worried about any 'self promotion'.I watch movies to be entertained. i don't care about casting, lighting, producers, directors, etc. What is the movie and does it entertain me.I watched this movie for the message. The world's greatest epidemic is low self-esteem (which is a whole other story) so watched with the message in mind, as that is an area of interest. The movie is light, bright and breezy, great for kids. I found the Texan twang began to fade throughout the movie and of course there are only so many ways to convey the give up/don't give up message, so yeh, it was a bit predictable. Great message though...should be more of them.This movie is a great family movie, but for a bloke watching by himself, get Hannibal.
| 1
|
train_4015
|
One of the more satisfying Western all'italiana, Johnny Yuma has the freshness of many WAI made during the heyday of the genre and is highly recommended for fans of the genre or offbeat, intelligent cinema.Johnny Yuma is, in most respects, not terribly original, but this actually does not count against it. The success of a genre film depends on how well it meets the audience's expectations as well as provides surprising variations on these expected elements. Earlier, pleasing experiences are recreated but with subtle (or major) twist that provide continuing interest. The quality of the execution is also, obviously, important. A tired retread will be less successful than a sincere attempt to entertain or move the audience.Given these criteria, Johnny Yuma succeeds. There are numerous reprises of elements from earlier films. The setting is the brutal, twisted semi-feudal twilight world of shared by many of the best "Gothic family" westerns made 1964-1968 such as Tempo di massacre (1966). The plot is a combination of the basic Fistful of Dollars (1964) plot and the Ringo films, a fact not surprising as screenwriter Fendiando di Leo was involved in both. Di Leo was one of the best screenwriters in the popular cinema coming out of Cinecitta in the 1960s-70s and his work helped provide much of the thematic continuities and coherency to the genre (Along with a couple of other personalities in a few distinct circles of actors, directors, and screenwriters). In the FOD plot, the protagonist arrives in town, stirs up a tense situation, then undergoes a near-death followed by a resurrection (in some films, like Quella sporca storia nel west (1968) it is quite literally a crucifixion). The Catholic undertone to the narrative and the symbolism is intriguing, especially given the implicit populist/explicit socialist leanings of the filmmakers and their films. The Ringo plot, developed more fully by screenwriter Ernesto Gastaldi in a series of films starring Guliano Gemma, a egoistic protagonist chooses the interest of a community over his own through the medium of a relationship with a member of that community (with a healthy dash ironic uncertainty).The relationship between Carradine and Johnny is clearly based on that of Manco/Mortimer from a Fistful of Dollar (1965). The two scene of the exchange of the gun belts provides a clever dialog and understanding between the two. Numerous films, including Da uomo a uomo (1968) or even El Chuncho, quién sabe? (1967), use this relationship between an older and younger man (father/son, older/younger brother, Anglo adviser/adversary and peasant revolutionary) as a central dynamic to the plot.Additionally, there is the focus on deception and misdirection, mazes and mirrors, that recur throughout the best early WAI. The canons and pueblos of Almeria become literal mazes through which protagonist and antagonist play shifting games of cat and mouse.What distinguishes Johnny Yuma from other WAI is the quality of director Romolo Guerriri's use of visual/psychological space together arrangement with the script's intelligent mechanisms to forward the plot. Dialogue was never very important to the WAI and often absurdly unintelligible (thought there are exceptions, such as the cynical commentaries in Django (1966) or Faccia a faccia (1967).Psychological depth of character is created almost entirely through iconic imagery, it's juxtapositions, and it's description of the overall narrative situation. See how the presence of the deadly Samantha is felt during the beating scene watching from the roof or from the background of the action. Or how Johnny strips Samantha and Pedro of their security and confidence in their power through his stealthy invasions of their ranch, hotel, even bedroom (this, again, is a theme from FOD). Finally, note how there is a focus on the search for information. Like many elements, this is borrowed from FOD which was ultimately based on the hard-boiled mystery novel Red Harvest. It is through incidental contacts, wanted posters, overheard conversations, glances out of windows, watches left in the dust, or mistaken identities and movements through the ripples created by the actions of Pedro and Samantha within this surreal and absurd reality that the narrative tacks forward to it's conclusion.The movie was notable in it's time for what were perceived of as excesses in violence. Of course, these films were hardly more violent than many American westerns. What was different was the psychological intensity of the violence and the causes to which it was attributed, which is to say that it was not the violence but it's meaning that had changed. Johnny Yuma is distinct and interesting in it's use and portrayal of violence and this is another interesting aspect of the film.What I personally find most interesting about most of this genre is the link it provides to the anonymous, nameless audiences in Italy and Spain to whom these recurrent narratives held some significance and interest. The artifact may have no intrinsic worth in and of itself some flint debitage from a prehistoric site, a shard of cruse pottery, or a moldering piece of leather and rusted metal but it is reference to some nameless presence, lives, that were significant simply because they existed. While Johnny Yuma has intrinsic worth, much of it's interest for me derives from this connection and mystery.Top spaghetti western list http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=21849907Average SWs http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=21849889For fanatics only (bottom of the barrel) http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=21849890
| 1
|
train_202
|
A Give this Movie a 10/10 because it deserves a 10/10. Two of the best actors of their time-Walter Matthau & George Burns collaborate with Neil Simon and all of the other actors that are in this film + director Herbert Ross, and all of that makes this stage adaption come true. The Sunshine Boys is one of the best films of the 70's. I love the type of humor in this film, it just makes me laugh so hard.I got this movie on VHS 3 days ago (yes, VHS because it was cheaper-only $3). I watched it as soon as I got home, but I had to watch it again because I kept missing a few parts the first time. The second time I watched it, it felt a lot better, and I laughed a lot harder. I'm definitely going to re-get this on DVD because I HAVE to see the special features.It's very funny how that happens. Two people work together as entertainers/actors/performers. They get along well on stage, but really argue off stage, they can't survive another minute with each other, then some 15 years later, you want to reunite them for a TV special. You can find that in this film. Matthau & Burns were terrific in this film. It's a damn shame they died. George Burns deserved that Oscar. He gave a strong comic performance. He was also 78 when this movie was filmed. So far, he's the oldest actor to receive an academy award at an old age. Jessica Tandy breaks the record as the oldest actress. Richard Benjamin was also fantastic in this. He won a Golden Globe for best supporting actor. He deserved that Golden Globe. Although many people might disagree with what I am about to say, everybody in this film gave a strong performance. This Comedy is an instant classic. I highly recommend it. One more thing: Whoever hates this film is a "Putz"
| 1
|
train_8035
|
Sunday would not be Sunday without an action movie, and when you want intense combat, you turn to Tom Berenger (Platoon).Here he plays a sniper in the jungle going after rebels and drug lords. Life's a bitch, so he gets a green office type (Billy Zane) to help on the mission.The film is in the hands of Luis Llosa, who stunk up Anaconda. he doesn't do much better here, but Berenger makes the movie worthwhile.Sure, it may be a little long - who wants to see a lot of walking through the jungle, but is is good, tense action when the time is right.
| 1
|
train_1268
|
Just Cause takes some of the best parts of three films, Cape Fear, A Touch of Evil and Silence of the Lambs and mixes it together to come up with a good thriller of a film.Sean Connery is a liberal law professor, married to a former Assistant District Attorney, Kate Capshaw and he's a crusader against capital punishment. Blair Underwood's grandmother Ruby Dee buttonholes Connery at a conference and persuades him to handle her grandson's appeal. He's sitting on death row for the murder of a young girl.When Connery arrives in this rural Florida county he's up against a tough sheriff played by Laurence Fishburne who's about as ruthless in his crime solving as Orson Welles was in Touch of Evil. Later on after Connery gets the verdict set aside with evidence he's uncovered, he's feeling pretty good about himself. At that point the film takes a decided turn from Touch of Evil to Cape Fear.To say that all is not what it seems is to put it mildly. The cast uniformly turns in some good performances. Special mention must be made of Ed Harris who plays a Hannibal Lecter like serial killer on death row with Underwood. He will make your skin crawl and he starts making Connery rethink some of those comfortable liberal premises he's been basing his convictions on. Many a confirmed liberal I've known has come out thinking quite differently once they've become a crime victim.Of course the reverse is equally true. Many a law and order conservative if they ever get involved on the wrong end of the criminal justice system wants to make real sure all his rights are indeed guaranteed.Criminal justice is not an end, but a process and a never ending one at that for all society. I guess if Just Cause has a moral that would probably be it.
| 1
|
train_3928
|
Sure it was well shot and made, very well shot and made! But the story was just so weak. And the portrayal of Lincoln was even weaker. Not that Henry Fonda wasn't good but the character he played was nothing but a loon. Do you mean to tell me that Lincoln was a wise cracking smart ass with no respect of the law or the court. I mean who the hell was he supposed to be? Cousin Vinnie? I mean come on, "I'll just call you Jackass then"???? I understand that Ford was going for great funny hero guy but I didn't really like this guy at all. He cheats in sports, talks like a real sweet simpleton and does not seem to know were to sit in a courtroom. How am I supposed to take this seriously.The twist was even weaker. I mean come on! That was just stupid. The whole story seemed like it was thought up by some 5 year old in his or her dreams. Saying that I liked it enough, it was very entertaining and made me laugh at several occasions so I can't say it's a bad film. In fact I must say that I must say it's good enough, nothing that entertains me and makes me laugh can be bad BUT this vivid and silly story was just so ridiculous that I can't understand how anyone could consider it great.I have no idea how historically accurate this film was but if any of it was true I would really have to shake my head.
| 1
|
train_11832
|
Time for a rant, eh: I thought Spirit was a great movie to watch. However, there were a few things that stop me from rating it higher than a 6 or 7 (I'm being a little bit generous with the 7).Point #1: Matt Damon aggravates me. I was thinking, 'what a dicky voice they got for the main character,' when I first heard him narrate - and then I realized it is Matt Damon. The man bugs me so very bad - his performance in "The Departed" was terrible and ruined the movie for me (before the movie got a chance to ruin itself, but that's another story for some other time), as it almost did "Spirit". I was able to get past this fact because of how little narration there actually was... thankfully.Point #2: Brian Adams sucks... The whole score was terrible... The songs were unoriginal, generic, and poorly executed; not once did I find the music to fit; and the lyrics were terrible. Every time one of the lame songs came on, I was turned off. I almost thought I'd start hearing some patriotic propaganda slipped into the super-American freedom style lyrics (I couldn't help but be reminded of those terrible patriotic songs that played on the radio constantly after 9/11). In light of the native American aspects of the film, they should have gone with fitting music using right instruments, not petty radio-hit, teen-bop, 14-year-old-girl crap. I thought I was back in junior high school. I can't believe no better could have been done--I refuse to. Had it not have been for this, I'd rank the film up more with Disney, which knows a thing or two about originality (ok, don't bother saying what I know some of you are probably thinking ;). Too bad, it's a shame they couldn't have hired better musicians.I liked the art and animation, except for some things here and there... like sometimes the angles appear too sharp on the face and the lines too thick or dark on the body (thick/dark lines mainly near the end). There were often times when I thought they _tried too hard_ on the emotion and facial expressions and failed at drawing any real emotion. But there were also times when the emotion ran thick. Anyhow, many scenes were lazy and the layers were apparent.OK, I'm falling asleep here so I'll sum it up before I start making less sense...Nice try on an epic film... it turned out mediocre though. Matt Damon, you suck!
| 1
|
train_8734
|
The movie was totally Awesome and Cool. The graphics was superb and it was amazing, Especially, Flik was superb and awesome in the movie and he was funny and he was and sometimes he was intelligent. The circus bugs are colorful and they are superb in the movie. The grasshoppers were also superb and cool in the movie. Hopper was a pure and perfect villain. Even, Dot was cute. When, the bird comes to eat the bugs, that scene was superb and good. Even, the last scene was awesome and cool. Even, Flik's inventions was good. Building an artificial bird was a good idea to scare away the grasshoppers. When, the ants are building the artificial bird, that scene was good and nice I should really appreciate the creators of "A Bug's Life".
| 1
|
train_9972
|
This is definitely an appropriate update for the original, except that "party on the left is now party on the right." Like the original, this movie rails against a federal government which oversteps its bounds with regards to personal liberty. It is a warning of how tenuous our political liberties are in an era of an over-zealous, and over-powerful federal government. Kowalski serves as a metaphor for Waco and Ruby Ridge, where the US government, with the cooperation of the mainstream media, threw around words like "white supremacist" and "right wing extremists as well as trumped-up drug charges to abridge the most fundamental of its' citizens rights, with the willing acquiescence of the general populace. That message is so non-PC, I am stunned that this film could be made - at least not without bringing the Federal government via the IRS down on the makers like they did to Juanita Broderick, Katherine Prudhomme, the Western Journalism Center, and countless others who dared to speak out. "Live Free or Die" is the motto on Jason Priestly's hat as he brilliantly portrays "the voice," and that sums up the dangerous (to some) message of this film.
| 1
|
train_5434
|
The film was shot at Movie Flats, just off route 395, near Lone Pine, California, north of the road to Whitney Portals. You can still find splashes of cement and iron joists plastered across the rocks where the sets were built. And you'll recognize the area from any Randolph Scott movie.I won't bother with the plot, since I'm sure it's covered elsewhere. The movie stars three athletes -- Fairbanks fils, who must have learned a good deal from his Dad -- Grant, an acrobat in his youth -- and MacLaughlin, a professional boxer from South Africa. Their physical skills are all on display.Not a moment of this movie is to be taken seriously. It's about Thugees, a sect in India, whence our English word "thug." I can't go through all the felicities of this movie but probably ought to point out that the director, George Stevens, was a polymath with a background in Laurel and Hardy movies -- see his choreography of the fight scenes -- and went on to the infinitely long dissolves of Shane and The Diary of Anne Frank. Dynasties rose and fell. Geological epochs came and went, while Liz Taylor and Monty Clift kissed in "A Place in the Sun." Here, in his comic mode, he excels.This is a story of male bonding and it would be easy -- too easy -- to read homoeroticism into it, as many people do with Howard Hawks. Or hatred of women. But it isn't that at all. Sometimes things portrayed on screen don't deserve too much in the way of heuristic attention. Men WILL form bonds by working together in a way that women do not. (Women share secrets.) Read Deborah Tannen, nobody's idea of an anti-feminist. Well, when you think about it, that's what evolution should have produced. For most of human history -- about nine tenths of it -- hominids have been hunters and gatherers, and the men tend to hunt and the women to gather. Hunting is more effective as a team enterprise. Men who were not very good at bonding were Darwinianed out, leaving men who have a lot of team spirit. And Grant, Fairbanks, and MacLaughlin have got it in spades.Sorry to ramble on about evolution but I'm an anthropologist and it is an occupational disease. Did I ever tell you about the horse in Vaitongi, Samoa, that slipped on the cement and fell in the bathtub with me? You've got to watch the hooves.Joan Fontaine is lovely, really. Only got to know her in her later years and wondered why she was in so many movies. I lived in Saratoga, California, where her sister, Olivia DeHavilland, grew up and went to a convent school. Pretty place.If you miss this adventurous lively farraginous chronicle of the British Empahh at its height, you should never forgive yourself. It's so famous that it's parodied in the Peter Sellers movie, "The Party." Yes -- the colonel's got to know.
| 1
|
train_5346
|
Carol, the young girl at the center of the story, is transplanted to a foreign land, Spain, at the height of the Civil War conflict in the late 30s. For this girl, everything is new, in it's foreignness. The war and her father are her constant worries, while she has to immerse herself in a provincial culture that is years behind what she has in New York.Imanol Uribe directs this film by the numbers. Carol's family is obviously divided, while Carol's mother is married to someone that is an air force pilot with the leftist faction, the rest of the family's sympathies are with the Franco and the fascists that won the conflict.The story adds nothing to what has already been told, much better, but it's an easy film to watch. Northern Spain's magnificent landscape is shown. Don't expect a lot of action since most of what happens revolves around Carol and the young boys she befriends.Clara Lago plays Carol with sincerity and innocence. Maria Barranco is Carol's mother Aurora, the one that went away to America. Rosa Maria Sarda is Maruja, the teacher who befriends Carol. Carmelo Gomez, plays Alfonso, the man that Aurora left behind when she left for America. This actor, who usually has lead roles in most Spanish films, doesn't have anything to do, as he remains an enigma throughout the movie.
| 1
|
train_5892
|
Thomas Ince always had a knack for bringing simple homespun stories to life with fullness and flair. "The Italian" is such a film. Solid acting, particularly by George Beban, father of silent child actor George Beban, Jr., and wonderful sets convey a realistic feeling of early immigrant tenements in New York. These give this 1915 film an authenticity which is unusual in features of this vintage.The film begins with the modern day and a man (George Beban in modern clothes) reading a story about an Italian immigrant, and then we transition into the story with George playing the immigrant. He raises enough money to bring his fiancée from Italy to America, marries her, and has a son with her. But times are hard and the family struggles to survive. I found myself wondering why the mother didn't breastfeed her child, and avoid the complications with the dirty formula, but oh well, even the early Dream Factory was pushing political correct behaviour for women in 1915!The best scene in the picture is when Beban has a chance to seek revenge on a crime boss who inadvertently put him in jail, and at the last minute he decides against his planned course of action. Very neat. I loved the curtain effect, it was great. Wonderful use of lighting in this film.I give "The Italian" an 8 out of 10.
| 1
|
train_11897
|
This is a nice little horror flick that fans of indie films will really appreciate. It has good acting, lots of gore, and a decent plot. One will be reminded of movies like The Hills Have Eyes and Pumpkinhead. It's obvious that the budget was not all that big, but the film really makes up for it with atmosphere and solid performances by the actors, which seems to be lacking in a lot of today's big budget special effects-filled films. The film really moves along and there is excellent direction and good camera work. There are no wasted scenes, so the film's length is a bit short. In addition, it looks like the ending leaves an opening for a sequel, which would be very interesting as well. So grab some popcorn, turn down the lights and enjoy this one.
| 1
|
train_15107
|
I watched the film recently and it poorly resembles the book is based on. I blame this on poor screenplay and direction. Some parts were forcibly introduced (the gay rape scene) for no apparent reason. I actually read the book after watching the movie and some 20 years or so after reading it for the first time. I found it hard to read and somewhat clumsy. Too many disparate ideas introduced for no benefit at all... other than sensational parts for the time. As it covers stuff that was deemed 'sensitive', to say the least, during communism, I can see the fascination it produced at the time. That isn't the case anymore though or maybe I see things differently now or a bit of both. The film tries too much to cover many aspects from the book, the result being a concoction of scenes that may make some sense to someone who read the book. Even so this is a film that is difficult to watch and maybe should have never been made.
| 0
|
train_7564
|
In my line of work, I occasionally get contacted by independent filmmakers who are trying to publicize their film. When I can, I take a look at these low-budget films and often they make me think that the future of Hollywood is going to the dogs. Once in a while, though, there is a film that is born of pure passion and desire, as if created for the purpose of reminding the film industry that good movies are still possible. The short film B R O K E N, directed by Alex Ferrari, is a genuine surprise and worth a second look.Clocking in at a scant 20 minutes, B R O K E N tries to tell a compelling (but surreal) story with almost no back story. The audience is plopped down in the middle of the action with no clue as to what is happening. A young woman (Samantha Jane Polay) awakens from a dream to hear a gunshot and is subsequently abducted from her home. When she awakes, she is surrounded by a group of mercenary thugs that look like they would be at home in a comic book. These nasty guys and girls are larger than life. They are all guns and knives. There is no way out.The kicker here is that, despite being a low budget film it doesn't play like one. From the very beginning, the feeling is that B R O K E N has been shot, edited, and produced by professionals. It looks like something Quentin Tarantino might have done on his day off when he was jamming with the Wachowski brothers. The film is sharp and cool, it looks good and it feels like something big.The acting is much better than I usually see in these smaller films. Polay and Paul Gordon (who plays the head killer, Duncan) were well chosen. As two of the few speaking roles in the film, it is up to them to carry the film. No special effects, no matter how good, would have saved this film from bad acting. Thankfully, Polay manages to convey true fear and Gordon manages to come off as a real psycho. Some of the more limited roles seem to be filled by lesser talent, but it hardly shows.The downside to B R O K E N is that it's only 20 minutes long. The story ends with a Twilight Zone twist that seems a bit contrived and is hardly subtle. Watching it, I felt like I was supposed to have some epiphany, but there was only a feeling that it was much more mundane than I had hoped it would be. The film tries hard to be one of those puzzles that leaves audiences talking for hours at the local coffee shop, but it comes off as unsatisfying. I keep thinking that this is the first 20 minutes of a longer film.MY RATING: 8 out of 10.
| 1
|
train_2826
|
I was given the opportunity to see this 1926 film in a magnificently restored theater that was once part of the extensive Paramount chain of vaudeville houses. This Paramount has a Mighty Wurlitzer' organ also magnificently restored -- that was used to accompany the silent films of the day.We were fortunate enough to have Dennis James, a key figure in the international revival of silent films at the Mighty Wurlitzer playing appropriate music and thematic compositions fitting to the action on the film. The print was a nearly perfect digital copy of the rapidly decaying nitrate negative and the entire experience was a once-in-a-lifetime chance to see a silent film as it was meant to be seen.This was Greta Garbo's first American film. She was only 20 years old but already had 6 Swedish films in her repertoire.It is somewhat ironic that this is a silent film about an opera star; even though the Mighty Wurlitzer added immensely to the mise-en-scene, it was necessary to leave much to the imagination.Modern audiences, for the most part, do not understand silent films
Acting was different then, with expansive gestures and broad facial expressions. Therefore audiences laugh at inappropriate times the acting is seen as hammy' and over-done but it was simply the style of the period.Garbo, with all her subtlety, did much to usher in the new age of acting: she could say more with a half-closed eye and volumes could be read into a downward glance or a simple shrug. She exemplifies the truism that `a picture is worth a thousand words.'Even though this is Garbo's first American film it is pretty obvious the studio knew what they had on their hands: This was MGM filmmaking at its best. The sets and costumes were magnificent. The special effects which by today's standards are pretty feeble were still electrifying and amazing.The script by Vicente Blasco Ibanez (from the novel by Entre Naranjos) would seem to be tailor made for Garbo; it showcases her strengths, magnifies her assets and there is no pesky language problem to deal with: a Swedish actress can play a Spanish temptress with no suspension of disbelief on our part.Her co-star was MGM's answer to Rudolph Valentino: Ricardo Cortez. He does an admirable job and did something that few romantic stars of the day ever would have done in a film: allow himself to look unnactractive, appear foolish and to grow old ungracefully.There are some fairly good character parts that are more than adequately acted especially when you consider the powerhouse that was Garbo. Notable among them are Lucien Littlefield as Cupido' and Martha Mattox as Doña Bernarda Brull.'This is when the extraordinary cinematographer, William H. Daniels, met Garbo they went on to make 20 films together. (He was the cinematographer on 157 films and his career spanned five decades!) He was able to capture her ethereal beauty and it was his photography that was primarily responsible for the moniker by which she became known: The Divine Garbo. Without his magnificent abilities she would not have been the success that she was.Seeing this film is an all-too-rare opportunity: if you ever have the chance, do not miss it.
| 1
|
train_8658
|
It's a road movie, with a killer on-board. Brian Kessler (David Duchovny), a sophisticated, urbane writer, wants to conduct field research on American serial killers. But, neither he, nor his girlfriend, Carrie (Michelle Forbes), has the money for a cross-country tour of murder sites, so they advertise for someone to share travel expenses. Who they end up with is a young couple, Early Grayce (Brad Pitt) and his girlfriend, Adele (Juliette Lewis), two better examples of "poor white trash" you will never find in all of cinema.Indeed, Early and Adele are what make this film so entertaining, as they babble, cackle, confide, muse, speculate, drool, and otherwise behave in ways I haven't seen since reruns of "The Beverly Hillbillies". Early's idea of California: "People think faster out there, on account of all that warm weather; cold weather makes people stupid". That's enough to convince Adele: "I guess that explains why there are so many stupid people around here". To which Early responds proudly: "It sure does". Early continues to instruct Adele about California: "You never have to buy no fruit, on account it's all on the trees ... and they ain't got no speed limits, and I hear your first month's rent is free, state law".But poor Early has some, well, mental problems, which become ever more obvious to Brian and Carrie as the four travelers proceed west across the U.S. As they enter the desert Southwest, with its beautifully stark landscape, "Kalifornia" starts to look more and more like "The Hitcher" (1986), and Early starts to act more and more like John Ryder, everyone's maniacal hitchhiker, whose terror seemed so unstoppable.In "Kalifornia", the acting is uneven. Duchovny's performance is flat. Brad Pitt is surprisingly effective, despite his overacting at times. Michelle Forbes is great as the avant-garde, photographic artist. But my choice for best performance goes to Juliette Lewis. With her nasal voice and heavy-duty Southern accent, she is stunning, as the naive, highly animated, child-like Adele.Toward the end, the film takes on a Twilight Zone feel to it, as our travelers enter a Nevada nuclear test site with a dilapidated old house full of test mannequins. The plot dissolves rather messily into unnecessary and preposterous violence, an ending that was somewhat disappointing.Overall, however, "Kalifornia" is an entertaining film, thanks to a clever concept, great scenery, especially in the second half, good cinematography, great dialogue, and that wonderful performance by Juliette Lewis.
| 1
|
train_16576
|
This subject matter deserves a much better script, and final result, than this movie serves up. The script is full of holes because it was never conceived as a story, but rather a string of nightmare scenarios loosely knitted together. The gaps and loose ends in the story line are numerous. The scene where the kidnap victim is told that her parents are not dead, and have been looking for her since she was taken, is just bizarre. It is written as a cathartic therapy moment with the head of the shelter for runaways handing her a "missing poster" from when she was eight. In the real world, if the head of a shelter for runaways found out that he had, under his roof, a solved kidnapping, what would have followed would have been an immediate call to the police. It's a law enforcement issue not a 12 minute segment for Oprah. Everything that follows from there to the end is so short shrift that I can only conclude that the first 90 minutes was for pure gratuitous exploitation. Funny, that's what this movie is supposed to be condemning. In the end it seems to have joined in.
| 0
|
train_4357
|
I saw the film at the Nashville Film Festival. It was beautifully done, from cinematography to the acting. It's the story of a father and son, and how they come to appreciate each other during a family crisis. Beautifully written with dialog that never rings false, the film showcases the acting talents of Paul Reiser and Peter Falk, among others in this outstanding cast. The film begins with the aging father (Peter Falk)is trying to figure out why his wife (Olympia Dukakis) has left him. The father presents himself, unannounced, on the doorstep of his son and daughter-in-law. The father and son take off the next day to look at some property and end up taking a classic road trip. They fish, play pool, watch a baseball game, get drunk, get involved in a barroom brawl, and dance with strange women. But more important, they each confront the unspoken tensions that can affect any family. It's the kind of film that touches the heart and makes one appreciate those who are closest to them.
| 1
|
train_20388
|
didn't know anything about the film or that it was based on a best selling book.Tried guessing from the opening scenes what it would be about,best guess,buried treasure and a death list.That lasted about 15 minutes when i got the sneaky suspicion that the film was crap.I'll not bore you with how bad the plot and acting were but anyone who gave it more than two stars must work for the film makers.I watched until the hero jumped into his corvette to rush to the hospital.He had his on his suit,shirt and tie arrived at the hospital in jeans and a t/shirt.Couldn't even get the continuity right. I got the Christian theme,hard to miss it .
| 0
|
train_22360
|
I usually enjoy films like this. It's shot documentary style, but the acting and writing are just awful. The acting is wooden and stiff and the writing is just so cliché, but not at all in a good way. As of typing this, I'm surprised it's at a 5.2/10 on IMDb. I'm certain that most of these votes must have come from relatives of people in the movie. I suppose if that's the case, you might manage a couple of laughs, as it's always funny seeing your relatives/friends make a movie. Well, in a way, I guess this gives hope to all up and coming writers, directors, actors, etc., 'cause if they can do it, you can do it. Although, maybe you shouldn't.
| 0
|
train_19734
|
In one word: excruciating. I was advised to read some articles about this film's philosophical meanings afterward, but, having sat through the movie's interminable 115 minutes and being slowly crushed beneath its bloated symbolism and lava-flowing oppressiveness, it seemed better to just report my reactions to the movie. After all, who goes to see a movie with a syllabus in hand? And this flick was dismal. Lead actor Claude Laydu, from the film's opening to its end, wears the same wearying and annoying mask of agony as to be practically indistinguishable from the film's eternal, dreary voice-over. Filming one over the other might have worked better than subjecting an audience to both, as they basically say the same thing: The priest of Ambricourt is a wretched human being. The story, about a persecuted priest who tries to help out a troubled rich family, does nothing toward making its characters remotely interesting or sympathetic, as the family are a bunch of unpleasant weirdos, and the priest, himself, comes across as a nosy pest. The last 30 minutes suggests some breath-taking message about grace and one man's suffering equaling that of others, but due to all the indulgent close-ups of a suffering Laydu and the vague subtext in Robert Bresson's script, all I felt was, Finally, it's over, let's have some ice-cream. Interesting for fans of Bresson fanatic Paul Schrader, just to see how many elements of character and setting Schrader carried into in his own scripts and movies, especially "Taxidriver", "Raging Bull" and "Light Sleeper".
| 0
|
train_8486
|
I really enjoyed this movie. Typically Ron Howard who seems to like being associated with Michael Keaton. Love the scene when Hunt travels to Japan with his sales pitch. Whoa, how did that get in there ! Cheap laughs but great value
| 1
|
train_21750
|
Disappointing, predictable film in which a woman (Mc Teer) travels with her daughter from state to state because she can't maintain relationships and find happiness. In this genre 'Anywhere but here' starring Susan Sarandon and Natalie Portman gave a much better insight into a mother/daughter relationship. With Better acting as well.
| 0
|
train_14748
|
This film is a huge steaming pile. I have no idea why anyone felt that the Garland/Mason version needed to be redone, nor why Striesand would have been a first choice to star.For that matter, I have no idea why our people (Gay Americans) tend largely to regard Striesand as some kind of treasure. At least in my opinion, she had peaked professionally with with Funny Girl, and Bogdanovich's What's Up Doc. Do yourself a favor and rent the Judy classic, or even the original (a fine film in its own right), but please, Please, PLEASE skip this stinkpot!
| 0
|
train_8067
|
Today if someone mentions the name Victor McLaglen the response most likely will be "Who?" or perhaps "Why?" Well, believe it or not, Victor McLaglen won the Academy Award for Best Actor in this film, which is about a poor, desperate man who is willing to sell out his best friend for "carfare" to the United States. It's an interesting movie which shows how low even the most well-meaning shnooks will go just for a few bucks. The movie takes place in British-dominated Ireland and while all the other characters are either directly or indirectly fighting for the political independence of Ireland, all Mr. McLaglen's character is concerned about is getting money and getting drunk. The movie makes one wonder whether political activism is worth all the trouble because while the activist is struggling to make a point, many others not only do not care, they don't even know what the fuss is all about. The morale of this movie is: look out for the friend, he may sell you out for a dime.
| 1
|
train_8489
|
I teach Japanese for an online high school and I include cultural activities so that the students can learn about the country as well as the language. And watching "Gung Ho" is one of the requirements. The students can either buy or rent the movie. Stereotypes or not, this helps the students to see that other people view the world and their lives differently than we do. Many of my students have told me that they enjoyed the movie so much, they are going to get a copy for themselves. It is really interesting to see what we value in this culture and what they value in their culture. I just wish I could get a cleaned-up TV version. I'm not really into the crude language the auto workers use all the time.
| 1
|
train_5519
|
I sat through both parts of Che last night, back to back with a brief bathroom break, and I can't recall when 4 hours last passed so quickly. I'd had to psyche myself up for a week in advance because I have a real 'thing' about directors, producers and editors who keep putting over blown, over long quasi epics in front of us and I feel that on the whole, 2 to 2.5 hours is about right for a movie. So 4 hours seemed to be stretching the limits of my tolerance and I was very dubious about the whole enterprise. But I will say upfront that this is a beautifully I might say lovingly made movie and I'm really glad I saw it. Director Steven Soderbergh is to be congratulated on the clarity of his vision. The battle scenes zing as if you were dodging the bullets yourself.If there is a person on the planet who doesn't know, Ernesto 'Che' Guevara was the Argentinian doctor who helped Fidel Castro overthrow Fulgencio Batista via the 1959 Cuban revolution. When I was a kid in the 1960s, Che's image was everywhere; on bedroom wall posters, on T shirts, on magazine covers. Che's image has to be one of the most over exploited ever. If the famous images are to be relied on, then Che was a very good looking guy, the epitome of revolutionary romanticism. Had he been butt ugly, I have to wonder if he would have ever been quite so popular in the public imagination? Of course dying young helps.Movies have been made about Che before (notably the excellent Motorcycle Diaries of 2004 which starred the unbearably cute Gael Garcia Bernal as young Che, touring South America and seeing the endemic poverty which formed his Marxist politics) but I don't think anyone has ever tackled the entire story from beginning to end, and this two-parter is an ambitious project. I hope it pays off for Soderbergh but I can only imagine that instant commercial success may not have been uppermost in his mind.The first movie (The Agentine) shows Che meeting Castro in Mexico and follows their journey to Cuba to start the revolution and then the journey to New York in 1964 to address the UN. Cleverly shot black and white images look like contemporary film but aren't. The second film (Guerilla) picks up again in 1966 when Che arrives in Bolivia to start a new revolutionary movement. The second movie takes place almost entirely in the forest. As far as I can see it was shot mostly in Spain but I can still believe it must have been quite grueling to film. Benicio Del Toro is excellent as Che, a part he seems born to play.Personally, I felt that The Argentine (ie part one) was much easier to watch and more 'entertaining' in the strictly movie sense, because it is upbeat. They are winning; the Revolution will succeed. Che is in his element leading a disparate band of peasants, workers and intellectuals in the revolutionary cause. The second part is much harder to watch because of the inevitability of his defeat. In much the same way that the recent Valkyrie - while being a good movie - was an exercise in witnessing heroic failure, so I felt the same about part two of Che (Guerilla). We know at the outset that he dies, we know he fails. It is frustrating because the way the story is told, it is obvious fairly early on that the fomentation of revolution in Bolivia is doomed; Che is regarded as a foreign intruder and fails to connect with the indigenous peoples in the way that he did with the Cubans. He doggedly persists which is frustrating to watch because I felt that he should have known when to give up and move on to other, perhaps more successful, enterprises. The movie does not romanticise him too much. He kills people, he executes, he struggles with his asthma and follows a lost cause long after he should have given up and moved on, he leaves a wife alone to bring up five fatherless children.But overall, an excellent exercise in classic movie making. One note; as I watched the US trained Bolivian soldiers move in en masse to pick off Che and his small band of warriors one by one, it reminded me of the finale to Butch Cassidy. I almost turned to my husband and said so, but hesitated, thinking he would find such thoughts trite and out of place. As we left the theatre he turned to me and said "Didn't you think the end was like Butch Cassidy
!"
| 1
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.