id
stringlengths 7
11
| text
stringlengths 52
10.2k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|---|
train_10680
|
As is nearly always the case, when Britain comes up with an entertaining and/or successful sit-com or quiz show, the Yanks will come along and poach the format and produce their own, grossly inferior, version. Man About The House is, of course, no exception to that rule. The Yanks' version ( Three's Company ) was unwatchable, braindead pap that seem to run forever. A prime example of quantity over ( non-existent ) quality. The original, on the other hand, is a fondly-remembered gem that had the savvy ( like Fawlty Towers ) to pull the plug at precisely the right time ( unlike the 637 episodes of 'hilarity' that Three's Company came up with ). Jo was cute, there was brilliant chemistry between the Ropers, Richard O'Sullivan made it all look so easy, the scripts, whilst not exactly Oscar Wilde-standard, were consistently funny and Chrissy was THE most drop-dead gorgeous woman who has walked the face of this planet since The Dead Sea was merely feeling unwell. 'Nuff said.
| 1
|
train_15112
|
Only reason I have seen 101 Dalmatians was its nominations for original song and costume design for the Oscars. I must admit that I was less than impressed with this film. In this sequel, Cruella DeVil(by the way Glen Close pulls off this role very well) is released from the hospital due to her good behaviour. She likes all sort of animals and locks all her furs away. From that point, we only wait until she starts having crises. Soon enough, she does and tries to make the best coat of fashion world, of course for herself and from fine Dalmatian fur. Apart from Glen Close, I found all cast quite silly but from a child's eye funny. That is fair enough as its target market is, I assume, children under 12. Quite a good entertainment for children and families, but didn't do much for me. * out of *****
| 0
|
train_872
|
Carla works for a property developer's where she excels in being unattractive, unappreciated and desperate. She is also deaf.Her boss offers to hire in somebody to alleviate her heavy workload so she uses the opportunity to secure herself some male company. Help arrives in the form of Paul, a tattooed hoodlum fresh out of prison and clearly unsuited to the mannered routine of an office environment.An implicit sexual tension develops between the two of them and Carla is determined to keep him on despite his reluctance to embrace the working week. When Carla is edged out of an important contract she was negotiating by a slimy colleague she exploits Paul's criminality by having him steal the contract back. The colleague quickly realises that she's behind the robbery, but when he confronts her, Paul's readiness to punch people in the face comes in handy too - but this thuggery comes at a price. Paul is given a 'going over' by some mob acquaintances as a reminder about an unpaid debt. He formulates a plan which utilises Carla's unique lip reading abilities to rip-off a gang of violent bank robbers. It's now Carla's turn to enter a frightening new world.The fourth feature from director Jacques Audiard, 'READ MY LIPS' begins as a thoroughly engaging romantic drama between two marginalised losers only to shift gears halfway through into an edgy thriller where their symbiotic shortcomings turn them into winners. The leads are excellent; effortlessly convincing us that this odd couple could really connect. Carla's first meeting with Paul is an enjoyable farce in which she attempts to circumnavigate his surly reticence and jailbird manners only to discover that he was, until very recently, a jailbird. Emmanuelle Devos, who plays Carla, has that almost exclusive ability to go from dowdy to gorgeous and back again within a frame. Vincent Cassel plays Paul as a cornered dog who only really seems at home when he's receiving a beating or concocting the rip-off that is likely to get him killed.Like many French films, 'READ MY LIPS' appears, at first, to be about nothing in particular until you scratch beneath the surface and find that it's probably about everything. The only bum note is a subplot concerning the missing wife of Paul's parole officer; a device that seems contrived only to help steer the main thrust of the story into a neat little feelgood cul-de-sac.It was the French 'New Wave' of the 60's that first introduced the concept of 'genre' to film making and I've always felt that any medium is somewhat compromised when you have to use a system of labels to help define it; so it's always a pleasure to discover a film that seems to transcend genre, or better still, defy it.
| 1
|
train_1620
|
So wonderful, so quirky, so romantic, so Italian. The film is so feather -light you float off into its refracted reality and you never want to return to the humdrum again. A kitchen sink world of bakeries, and hairdressers, and plumbing, but one that shimmers with a soft luminescence. Should the credit go to the screenplay or the direction? Take your pick -- they're both faultless. Let me get back to that New York City that lies just beyond the looking glass.
| 1
|
train_14851
|
I have no idea how anyone managed to stay awake during this show. The acting was ham-fisted and amateur, the story was old news, and plot development (or lack thereof) invariably had my eyelids sagging less than halfway through each episode. That's about all there is to say of it, because it genuinely lacked substance of any kind.How can you people like crap like this? It's freaking stupid, it's an insult to your intelligence. I don't even know how to further explain it... It's as if some of you will stare mindlessly at junk like this solely because you like the way some of the actors look, or because, for whatever crazy reason, you haven't seen the same formulas in dozens of shows a million times before.I just.. forget it. This show sucked, and thankfully it's gone forever. I wish they'd get to work on demolishing The O.C. once and for all.
| 0
|
train_7595
|
Lost isn't the greatest TV show in history, but it's not far off. It doesn't have the plot or characterisation of The West Wing or possibly even early ER, however, it is arguably the most continuously gripping show I have every come across. I love the way I can't guess what's going to happen. I love the re-telling of the characters' back stories which often give rise to new dimensions for us to see them in. In some ways I want the show to last forever, but I think they can get 6-7 seasons out of it before they have to end it on a glorious high. The combination of the characters and their nationalities coupled with the show's fluidity for moving backwards and forwards thus extending dead characters "life spans" all adds to the overwhelming sense that this show is something very different from what we are used to. It's captivating, surprising and (here's a little suggestion for all of you conspiracy theorists) more than a little interactive- keep those internet discussions going- you're only adding to the plot...
| 1
|
train_5514
|
I watched part one two days ago and today I saw part two. Of course the two parts are worlds apart so I am a little shaken by all that I just saw. I felt consumed by the knowledge of the inevitability of Che's death; for me, it clouded the entire movie. I suppose that is exactly what Soderbergh wanted us to feel, the slowly evolving inevitability of his death. Part Two was so downbeat compared to, again an inevitability but in Cuba it was positive and in Bolivia it was so negative. The politics of the movement in Bolivia were only alluded to but rarely confronted didactically. For me the memorable scenes were all at the end of the film: the confrontation with the jailer and the milder talk with the Bolivian official where that official questions Che about the failure of the peasants to support his revolution. I had not considered the national differences playing as much role as they did in the conflict, Argentine versus Bolivian. I thought Soderbergh dealt admirably with the inevitable problems of supply in a revolutionary struggle; how do you get food without antagonizing the peasants who do not have enough themselves. I was struck by how hard it would be to try something as Che tried. I guess it is all in the timing; is there sufficient anger against the government to begin the movement; in Bolivia there wasn't. Che realized the terrible corundum of revolutionists in his letter to Fidel read at the beginning of the film: If not now, when, 50 years from now. A very thought provoking and well done film; make every effort to see it.
| 1
|
train_22388
|
From actor and independent writer/director John Cassavetes, A Woman Under the Influence gives the viewer a look at a working class family with a problem of mental instability. The husband, Nick (played by Peter Falk) is a blue collar worker who has trouble showing his wife, Mabel (played by Gena Rowlands) the amount of attention that she deserves. From the onset of the film, it is obvious that Mabel is very quirky and strange, but only a few minutes later it is clear that she is much more than that. Crazy. Bonkers. Out of her damn mind. Nick tries his hardest to hide this from his co-workers, and after she has a particularly strange incident at dinner, he asks her if she'll be okay, as if he's trying to deny Mabel's illness. Her problem only spirals from there.I did find some particular problems with this film. I guess these problems were mostly present in the story, and the way some of the character acted toward the end. Mabel has been committed, because, frankly, she's nuts. Then, six months later, she's ready to come out of the hospital, and her husband throws a party to welcome her back. He never acts stupid in the beginning of the movie. Why would he invite all these people, some of them strangers to Mabel, over to his house when his wife is in such a fragile state? It's simply idiotic. Later, after Mabel comes in the house, Mabel's father has a huge outburst at Nick, screaming at the top of his lungs about not wanting to eat spaghetti. His daughter has just gotten back from six months of rehabilitation, and the thing you want to do is keep her calm, and he goes nuts over spaghetti? A few minutes later in the film, Nick brings Mabel into the stairwell and forces her to do the things she did when she was mentally unstable; make her weird noises and gestures. Didn't he send her there to make her better and not do those things? There were various other parts that occurred after this, but it would just be redundant to look at them in more detail. I guess I just had a serious problem with the decision by Cassavetes to have his characters act in this way. It simply didn't make sense.However, although I had problems with the ending of the film, there was one aspect that really redeemed it; the acting. Gena Rowlands played an amazing crazy woman. There were times when I forgot she was acting, where I got so caught up in her wild gesticulations and crazy talk that I was actually scared of her. She was amazingly convincing and intense. However, I was also impressed by the rest of Mabel's family. Peter Falk played a very strange character, and I almost thought he was crazy himself, because of the awkward way he handled his children, his job, and especially the situation with his wife. I also usually don't appreciate child actors. But the young people who played Nick and Mabel's children in this film were phenomenal. It really felt like they were Mabel's children, because they seemed so attached to her and were so interesting in helping her with her problem. I think their performances are one of the things that kept this film together, and without them it would have made the film less realistic and less intense.In general I wasn't impressed by this film. The story was jumbled and unclear, and the characters acted in ways that made me wonder who wasn't insane in the movie. The only saving grace were brilliant lead acting roles of the Longhetti family. Their realistic dialogue and powerful acting kept the film together, and are probably the only reason the film has ever amounted to anything.
| 0
|
train_24424
|
RUN...do not walk away from this movie!!!!! Aimed at the very young kids, this movie will bore you to tears. If the Gamera trilogy of the 90's raised the bar, this film just lowered it. It's slow paced and the monster fighting is good, but seldom seen. This movie had me dry heaving in the cat box. Just a very poor offering after a phenomenal 90's series.SPOILERS BEYOND THIS POINT!!!!!!!!!!! Here are the top 10 reasons Gamera fans of the 90's series will HATE this film.10. This movie is a drama that follows a kid trying to cope with the death of his mother and fears losing baby Gamera to a fight after knowing his father saw the adult Gamera die.9. You see the adult Gamera for maybe a minute at the beginning of the film. He gets his butt kicked by a few Gyaos and self destructs??? He looks old and lethargic. Plus he looks nothing like any gamera you've ever seen. His suit looked cheap and rushed.8. The young Gamera you see through the rest of the film looks like a Pokemon. Big-eyed and cute...it will remind you of the baby Godzilla from Godzilla vs MechaGodzilla 2. Gamera is now too cute.7. This movie has the pace of watching a NASCAR race during a 3 hour rain delay. I watched this movie with 2 other Gamera fans and nobody was happy with how slowly this film moved along. I've seen an SUV full of fat people going up a mountain road move faster.6. Like Godzilla:Final Wars, this movie had very little kaiju time on screen. Final Wars had much more, actually, and better fights although short.5. Kids take the title role. The friend of all children theme and poor writing killed the original Gamera series in the 1970's and history repeats itself in the 2000's. The most successful Gamera films abandoned the Sesame Street feel and went to a darker place. Why go back to a failed formula? This was to be a new trilogy and poor ticket sales killed any hope for this story to continue (thank god).4. Gamera lost his iconic roar. He now sounds like an Elephant with strep throat.3. This movie may produce a new Olympic event.....Imagine a relay race that involves sending very young children into harm's way. You have to see the ending to understand this point. Where were the parents? Oh yea..right there sending their kids into a kaiju battle zone.2. The special effects were good, but sub-par for a Gamera movie. Legion and Iris had better effects. The best effect was showing the apple sized baby Gamera fly. Not too impressive.1. This movie is just not what adult kaiju fans come to expect. The director was involved in Power Rangers and it shows. It comes off like a cross between ET, Always: Sunset on Third Street and TMNT. Kudos if you know all 3 references.Rental at best or watch once if you buy it to complete the DVD series.
| 0
|
train_1116
|
Did Sandra (yes, she must have) know we would still be here for her some nine years later?See it if you haven't, again if you have; see her live while you can.
| 1
|
train_23024
|
I actually intended to see this movie in the theatre. It was actually sold out. I actually went to see Solaris instead, which actually was the worst movie to be released in 2002.Victor Rosa (John Leguizamo), a tough, streetwise 'street pharmacist', freaks out when he sees a kid get shot, so he decides to go clean and invest all of his money with Jack (Peter Sarsgaard). Things seem to be going pretty well until Jack skips town with his girlfriend Trish (Denise Richards). This happened very late in the movie, so had they not revealed this in the preview, it might have been an interesting twist. But they did, so it's not.In fact, there's not a single interesting thing about this movie; everything is given away in the preview. If you saw even one preview, you saw the whole movie, so you might just want to think really hard to fill in the gaps. Go to the website, download the preview, save yourself $3.99. There is not a single surprise or twist in the entire film, other than how terrible the soundtrack is.I hope that whoever was in charge of writing the soundtrack was fired. Twice. Most of it is what music would be like if the only songs allowed to be released were Ricky Martin and Gloria Estefan duets, and (I may shatter the fabric of the space-time continuum with a concept as mind-numbing as this) they both had less talent and musical ability.The acting is at best poor, the script is at best a crime against humanity, and Denise Richards is at best 67% styrofoam and 33% ziploc bag. You know things are bad when John Leguizamo (he was in The Pest!) upstages the rest of the cast with his acting abilities.
| 0
|
train_15159
|
I'm sorry but this is just awful. I have told people about this film and some of the bad acting that is in it and they almost don't believe me. There is nothing wrong with the idea, modern day Japanese troops get pulled back in time to the days of Busido warriors and with their modern weapons are a match for almost everything. When the troops first realise something strange is happening does every single person in the back of the transport need to say "Hey my watch has stopped"? Imagine lines like that being repeated 15+ times before they say anything else and you have the movie's lack of greatness in a nutshell.
| 0
|
train_2479
|
(Sorry for my faulty language, i am no native speaker ...)Yes, this is a movie that almost demands an overwhelming reaction. Personally i agree upon all those superlatives that are around. But i won't use this rather sematically void way myself to describe the movie here. Because those "perfect! the one-and-only! best-ever!"-reviews make some people turn away (including me).So if you are looking for another 'Hamlet' that has the potential to rival with many theatrical and all cinematic ones - Then don't miss this one, if you happen to find it anywhere. (Unfortunately not too many people will have any chance to see it. It seems there is no DVD out there, and the German language version - which is quite well done - is not available in any format.)Just in case you decide to get a copy: Spare out that cut down two hours (or so) version of this movie. It is no use and no fun, and gives a wrong impression of a movie, that deals in an interesting way with flow and architecture. And its also crippled down to 4:3 aspect ratio.Greetings from Germany, F.L.
| 1
|
train_13058
|
It's been about 14 years since Sharon Stone awarded viewers a leg-crossing that twisted many people's minds. And now, God knows why, she's in the game again. "Basic Instinct 2" is the sequel to the smash-hit erotica "Basic Instinct" featuring a sexy Stone and a vulnerable Michael Douglas. However, fans of the original might not even get close to this one, since "Instinct 2" is painful film-making, as the mediocre director Michael Caton-Jones assassinates the legacy of the first film.The plot of the movie starts when a car explosion breaks in right at the beginning. Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone, trying to look forcefully sexy) is a suspect and appears to be involved in the murder. A psychiatrist (a horrible David Morrisey) is appointed to examine her, but eventually falls for an intimate game of seduction.And there it is, without no further explanations, the basic force that moves this "Instinct". Nothing much is explained and we have to sit through a sleazy, C-class erotic film. Sharon Stone stars in her first role where she is most of the time a turn-off. Part of it because of the amateurish writing, the careless direction, and terrifyingly low chemistry. The movie is full of vulgar dialogues and even more sexuality (a menage a trois scene was cut off so that this wouldn't be rated NC-17) than the first entrance in the series. "Instinct" is a compelling torture.To top it off, everything that made the original film a guilty pleasure is not found anywhere in the film. The acting here is really bad. Sharon Stone has some highlights, but here, she gets extremely obnoxious. David Morrisey stars in the worst role of his life, and seems to never make more than two expressions in the movie- confused and aroused. "Instinct 2" is a horrible way to continue an otherwise original series, that managed to put in thriller with erotica extremely well. Paul Verhoeven, how I miss you...."Basic Instinct 2" never sounded like a good movie, and, indeed, it isn't. Some films should never get out of paper, and that is the feeling you get after watching this. Now, it is much easier to understand why Douglas and David Cronenberg dropped out, and why Sharon Stone was expecting a huge paycheck for this......-----3/10
| 0
|
train_8492
|
Gung Ho is one of those movies that I never get tired of watching. Michael Keaton has always been a favorite of mine, & he is absolutely hilarious in this movie. Matching him step for step is Gedde Watanabe. The two of them work wonderfully together. Although this movie is a comedy, I also like how it shows Hunt (Keaton) & Kazihiro (Watanabe) struggling in their roles as the leaders of their respective groups. They both try so hard to keep the peace, & then they finally get into a fight (which is hysterical to watch). First, they're both on the floor. Then Hunt jumps on a chair. Kazihiro jumps on the desk. Hunt jumps on the desk with him. The fight then spills out from the office into the factory. I love that after they are separated by the workers, you can tell that they both feel bad for letting things get so out of hand. Also, there is a scene where you can see the influence that Hunt has had on Kazihiro. He is at his house & his boss from Japan arrives & says he would like to visit the factory tomorrow: Kazihiro: Tomorrow not good day. Sakamoto: Why not? Kazihiro: Factory is locked & we can't find key.Tell me you can't picture Michael Keaton saying something like that!I guess I really like this movie because it is genuinely funny, & also shows how people that are radically different can not only learn from each other, but become good friends as well.
| 1
|
train_14757
|
I think that, deep down in the darkest, slimiest part of their heart, everyone likes Jerry Springer just a little bit. While his show is undeniably offensive and stupid, it also gives us a chance to see that, relatively speaking, most of us have it real good. When you look at the trailer park livin', dollar whiskey drinkin', incest lovin' people on the Springer show, it makes even your worst day seem like a walk in the park. Jerry is performing a public service, and we should be grateful. He ditched a political career to host the show, just for us.What we should not be grateful for in any way is the piece of garbage movie "Ringmaster". "Ringmaster" shows what life is like for people who wind up being guests on the show, or so they would like us to think. The movie follows the pre-requisite Springer story line: Love triangles. One triangle involves Connie, her daughter Angel, and her husband Rusty. The other involves Starletta, Vonda, and Demond. When the two hapless groups meet up in LA, their lives intertwine and collide head-on, all culminating in an explosive episode of the Springer show. It's like what "Short Cuts" would be if Robert Altman had had a severe crack habit."Ringmaster" is true to the show, as it is stupid and offensive from start to finish. It also makes me very glad that I don't live in the squalor it's characters do. But the movie has a problem. It's billed as a comedy, but it just isn't very funny. What laughs there are to be had are few and far between. Maybe some people watch this and laugh non-stop. If you think blow jobs and rape are funny, well then I guess you're one of those folks. Personally, I laughed two or three times and spent the rest of the movie in utter awe of the agonizing horrors of white-trash life.The Jerry Springer Show just isn't meant to make the leap from TV to the silver screen. What's funny in an hour long show (less, when you count commercials) isn't necessarily going to be funny in a ninety minute movie. Movies have to tell a story, and that's something else "Ringmaster" has trouble with. The story is threadbare. There are so many plot holes and continuity errors that any attempt at telling a cohesive narrative is quickly put asunder. And even if there weren't such problems, how much fun can you pull out of a story of stereotypical people in a stereotypical story? Even the Hollywood formula couldn't make this better. "Ringmaster: is so bad, it even screws up the best part of the Springer show: the Final Thought. Somehow, even the smartest and simplest aspect of the show wound up blowing harder than the slutty women the film is built around.The worst offender in all of this is Springer himself. He's such a bad actor that he can't even play himself convincingly. Watching Springer play Springer is sad. It's like he was going for a 'What if Woody Allen played Jerry Springer' vibe, and he failed. Miserably. He went to the trouble of producing this disaster, the least he could do is try to make it just that much better.Not that I'm saying everyone else in this movie put in an award worthy performance. Just the opposite. They all suck. Not so surprisingly, no one in this movie went on to greatness. The best any of them was did was Molly Hagan landing a job on a Nickelodeon sitcom. Apparently, Nickelodeon has no problem with hiring a woman who starred in the most vile film of the '90's to star in a children's program. It makes you wonder what kind of things the other adults on that channel have done in their pasts.Here are my Final Thoughts: What we have here is a group of people with no self respect and a man with money to burn, who have met and put their resources together to produce a film that shows how much they hate themselves and how little they think of the intelligence of their viewing audience. Should we accept people who make movies that treat us like severely brain-damaged lumps of goo? I say no. Somewhere out there, in this crazy, mixed up world, there is a perfect movie for each of us. We just have to keep looking for it. Until next time, take care of yourselves and your loved ones. And don't ever watch "Ringmaster".
| 0
|
train_1607
|
As someone else has already said here, every scene in this film is gem. Most films are lucky to have one scene that is perfect, but director Jewison hit a home run every time. The cast got just the right take on the excellent script, and in addition, Dick Hyman's musical settings of the opera and the other music made for a perfect match. Hard to imagine how they kept the precise mood going throughout the long production of a film. The comedy is subtle (mostly), and the camera-work mirrors every little emotional inflection of the narrative. Cher is such a comedy natural, Vincent Gardenia (who I know mostly through his Frank Lorenzo role on All in the Family until I saw him in this and then off-Broadway in the 80's)deserved far greater stardom than he ever got, and Aiello's hapless loser are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to giving kudos to this tremendous cast. Has Jewison ever written about this film?Would love to read it. Hard to figure out why the average rating here at IMDb is so low...
| 1
|
train_22263
|
Bestselling writer George Plimpton(Alan Alda)takes on an assignment for Sports Illustrated. He is to go incognito to the Detroit Lions training camp and try out for a position as third string Quarterback. He is quickly found out by the team members featuring Alex Karras and Mike Lucci. The entire team finds it amusing to cause stumbling blocks in the writer's determination to Quarterback for a series in a real game.This movie is Alda's debut and also helped Karras leave the gridiron for acting. Besides the 1968 Detroit Lions, the cast also includes "Sugar Ray" Robinson, Roy Schieder and Lauren Hutton.Alex March directs this story based on Plimton's book.
| 0
|
train_10027
|
Sure, Titanic was a good movie, the first time you see it, but you really should see it a second time and your opinion of the film will definetly change. The first time you see the movie you see the underlying love-story and think: ooh, how romantic. The second time (and I am not the only one to think this) it is just annoying and you just sit there watching the movie thinking, When is this d**n ship going to sink??? And even this is not as impressive when you see it several times. The acting in this film is not bad, but definetly not great either. Was I glad DiCaprio did not win an oscar for that film, I mean who does he think he is, Anthony Hopkins or Denzel Washington? He does 1 half-good movie and won't do a film for less than $20 million. And then everyone is suprised that there are hardly any films with him in it. But enough about, in my eyes, the worst character of the film. Kate Winslet's performance on the other hand was wonderful. I also tink that the director is very talented to put a film of such a magnitude together. There is one lesson to be learned about this movie: there are too many love-stories as it is, filmmakers shouldn't try to add a crummy romance in to every single movie!!! Out of a possible 100% I give this film a mere 71%.
| 1
|
train_16880
|
Plot: an amorous couple decide to engage in some extra-marital hijinks in a flashy car. They then become stuck (literally) in a Compromising Position, while said car wanders aimlessly about the countryside until the hapless couple are rescued by the authorities.That's it. That's the entire movie. There may have been some dialogue here and there, but nothing comes to mind. It should be obvious by now that this movie is not just pointless, but actually physically painful to watch. The fact that it starred two of the UKs best up-and-coming actors (one of whom is now sadly deceased) only adds to the horror.Ian Charleson was outstanding in the very much deserved Oscar-winning 'Chariots of Fire'. Let's remember him for that role, and try hard to pretend that this particular celluloidal abomination never happened.
| 0
|
train_10803
|
I don't understand. Not being a critic, i am not evaluating the quality of the acting, which I find believable, a good thing. My confusion lies with the content. Is no one else sensitive to the fact that these two unfaithful women were justifying their infidelity to men who were fighting and bleeding to guarantee the continued freedom of their families and their country. Should there not have been a prologue informing us if the men made it home and if so, what effect their cheating "wives'" infidelity had on them? While these women were bedding their paramours out of a sense loneliness, did they think that their husbands were enjoying being shot at while facing death or dismemberment daily? They didn't think of their husbands at all! Only of themselves. Pardon me, except when they wished their husbands dead.
| 1
|
train_9997
|
Life Stinks (1991) was a step below Mel Brooks other productions. He stars as a rich man who wages an insane wager with his "friends". Brooks claims that he can life like a homeless man for a month. His shocked and amused friends accept this unusual wager. During his "stay" in the Bowery, he meets a bunch of odd homeless people, one of them catches his fancy (Lesley-Ann Warren). They strike up a friendship as she teaches him the many tricks she learned whilst living on the street. Can Mr. Brooks survive on his own without the luxuries of being filthy rich? Will he win this unorthodox wager? Who are his true friends? Find out when you watch LIFE STINKS to find out!This film has been slagged unfairly. Sure it's not a classic like his earlier films but it's still enjoyable. I liked the way Mel Brooks pays homage to Charles Chaplin in this film. If you have watched Chaplin's earlier silent films then you'll get the humor as well.Recommended for Mel Brooks fans.
| 1
|
train_24336
|
Ultimately too silly and pointless. Yes there is the gilded cage metaphor but probably most kids would miss that. Forgettable. Instantly.Animation is, as we have come to expect, super-real. The plot-line could best be described as thin but tenacious. Although the ending seemed arbitrary to me.The sewer underworld is a suitably disgusting reflection of the world above and, somehow, wealth and money seem to count for a lot there too. Oh yes, and there's a romantic interest with the female being the smarter, more savvy and go-getting of the pair - this in itself is rapidly becoming a tiresome (anti) stereotype. Probably your kids will love it though.
| 0
|
train_12449
|
Finally was there released a good Modesty Blaise movie, which not only tells a story, but actually tells the "real" story. I admit that it is a bad movie if you expect an action thriller, but if you stop in your track and remove all your expectations. Then you will notice that it is a story that comes very close to the original made by Peter O'Donnell. You have a cover story just to tell about how Modesty became the magnificent person which she is. It is not a movie to attract new fans, but a movie to tell the real tale. Some things could have been better, but when you cannot forget the awful movie from '66 then is this a magnificent movie. So are you a fan then sit down relax and just enjoy that the real story is there with a cover story just to make Modesty tell her story.
| 1
|
train_15693
|
I can count (on one hand) the number of good movies starring Joe Don Baker. This is not one of them.Interminable chase scenes, dim-witted dialogue, and terrible lapses in continuity made this movie a prime choice for getting the send-up on MST3K.And that is the only way I was able to watch this...
| 0
|
train_16336
|
As one of the few commentators not to have seen the 1st film, I found this to be a very disappointing movie.Yes, it has a funny awkward type of humour if you can bear the (highly) morally dubious premise. However, it fails abysmally in the important areas.There is thin and nonsensical plot line involving Gordon Sinclair's generous friend who may or may not be entwined in a conspiracy to supply dangerous electronics to Third World countries - possibly in free computers ... or possibly not. Vague, long-winded and inconclusive. The lack of any substantial ending is so infuriating and what is present is pompous and wholly illogical. The film feels half-finished.Suspension of disbelief is extremely difficult when witnessing a very attractive female teacher (Maria Doyle Kennedy) can be drawn to Gordon Sinclair's unimpressive character, especially when he fends off her advances. Laughable. It worsens later in the film when he achieves his romantic ambitions then throws it all away for some ideals based on very little evidence of ambiguous value.Not many films leave me feeling cheated, but I felt my time was stolen.
| 0
|
train_20813
|
I watched this on a whim because it was available and I'd heard the Thumb movies were funny. This one was not. The majority of the jokes were based around "Geranium's" physique and, in turn, Kate Winslet's. I think it's really pathetic of the the "Thumbtanic" creators to stoop so low to make jabs at a respected actress just because she (heaven forbid) doesn't starve herself into the model of ideal modern beauty.My favorite part was the line that goes something like, "Hey, I have a great idea! Let's swim over to this makeshift raft that no one else seems to see!" Thirty seconds of amusement out of a 26 minute movie does not redeem its value.
| 0
|
train_23655
|
The only reason I even watched this was because I found it at my local library (and will berate them mercilessly for having wasted public monies on it), and despite the plethora of tits and ass, it didn't take long to realize that the fast-forward button was my friend. Terrible direction, pedestrian camera work, sporadically bad-to-nearly-passable acting, chintzy effects, and one of the worst screenplays I've had the displeasure of seeing brought to life (such as it was, horribly crippled and mutilated) in a long, long time. Best laughs actually come from the "Making of..." featurette, in which the poor saps involved with this HDV mess attempt to justify their lame efforts as if they had been working on something special, instead of something that won't be utterly forgotten next week. Wait! Except for the fact that somehow someone lured Tippi "The Birds" Hedren, of all people, into doing a bit part, along with Kane "Friday the 13th" Hodder! How this came to pass, I'll never know, and to be honest, I don't really care. Watch at your own risk, and don't say you haven't been warned. This is film-making at its pretentious, craven worst. It only gets a 2 from me for having some good-looking naked women, and even then, just barely.
| 0
|
train_4975
|
By God, it's been a long time since I saw this. Probably about 18 years ago?The movie tells us (kids) all about human blood and the circulatory system. Very professionally put together--Disney-style animation, plus human actors--it was directed by Frank Capra, for pete's sake!Kind of an overkill. I wonder if the very high production value is worth what amounts to a film-strip's worth of information on the human body? But boy will those kids watching it learn: even now I can clearly remember Dr. Baxter being challenged by Hemo himself to name what common material most resembles human blood, to which the Doctor immediately answers "sea water."
| 1
|
train_949
|
"Telefilms" tend to fall under the pitfalls of a low budget and a hasty shooting schedule, which is why this film always tends to buck the trend.George C. Scott embodies Ebenezer Scrooge perfectly, fully encompassing all of his cold tendencies, and still makes him a simpathetic character. The production value for this film was exceptional, never relying on boffo special effects or soundstage set-ups, yet relying on the depth and clarity of on-site shooting and strong backdrops. A movie that certainly stands alone.
| 1
|
train_14306
|
Antonioni's movies have aged not well. What always surprised me about them is that, besides an unquestionable plastic beauty, there is a dull and didactic "psychology" of the characters and situations. Remember, for instance, the conversations between Mastroianni and the "wicked capitalistic" that wants sing up him in "La notte", or Monica Vitti laughing at the peasants flirting in the train in "La aventura", or Ferzetti dropping the glass of ink at the end of the same film. I have reviewed yesterday "Zabriskie Point". In this film there are a lot of nice and elaborate shots of the Rod Taylor office, the streets and highways of L.A., the publicity advertisements, the deserts,etc., that show the fascination of the author in his American journey, in the same way than Wim Wenders years later. Unfortunately, there are too a lot of hippie-leftist clichés that spoil the movie: - The boy leaves the meeting, steals an aeroplane and flies over the desert in order to liberate himself and find "something different". - The executives in grey suites speak all the time about speculation. - The girl looks at the "object women" in the swimming pool and leaves because she wants not to be like them. - The couple of fat middle-class in the caravan speak, in front of the beauty of the nature, of building a hotel and earning a lot of money. - Last but not the least, a lot of couples making love in the desert. What a hippie platitude!Sorry, today, half a century after the "revolution" of "La Aventura" we can see that the king is naked, and his films (except "Le amiche" and perhaps "Il grido") are only a handful of aestheticism and commonplaces.
| 0
|
train_11310
|
Ossessione, adapted loosely (or if it is as loose or close to the version I saw of James M. Cain's The Postman Always Rings Twice with Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange I can't be certain) by first time director Luchino Visconti, is no less outstanding with usage of mis-en-scene, music (both diegetic and non-diegetic), and the acting. I didn't know what to expect Visconti to do in his approach to the material, after seeing La Terra Trema and seeing how sometimes his political motivations snuck in a little bit. But this is a totally character and emotional based drama, bordering on melodrama (however, without the conventions that bog down lesser ones), and with the style in the finest path of the budding film-noir movement, Visconti creates a debut that's as involving as any other neo-realist film. Neo-realism, by the way, could rightfully be claimed as this being a forefather (along with De Sica's The Children Are Watching Us), which that would take shape after the war. Although love and romance is more in play here than in some of the more famous neo-realist efforts, it's dealt with in a bare-bones storytelling fashion, and it's laced with other familiar themes in neo-realism (the lower-class, death, desperation).Aside from the story, which is simply as it is described on this site, the artistry with which Visconti captures the images, and then layers them with objects (a shawl over Gino Costa's profile when in guilt), shadows and darkness that tend to overcome many of the later scenes in the film (usually over Gian and Giovanna), and the feel of the Italian streets in many of the exterior scenes. Domenico Scala and Aldo Tonti (who would lens some of Rossellini and Fellini's films) help in envisioning the look of Ossessione, which is usually moving in on a character, then pausing to read as much emotion on their faces, their voices and mannerisms lovely and ugly, sad and dark and romantic. I think I've just scratched the surface on how effective it was that the film itself was moving me along, even as I was in fear of the futures of the two leads. The two leads (Massimo Girotti and Clara Calamai) portray all the compelling, truthful, and near-operatic emotions, and the key supporting actors are also without their attributes. It's a brilliant, crushing adaptation, and it points as a striking signpost of what was to come for Visconti in his career.
| 1
|
train_23063
|
Time spent watching this film was time wasted. I do not dislike science fiction. I do not reject any genre per se, since good work can be done in any genre. This film, however is not good work. I cannot fault the visuals (when not involving alien makeups), and the special effects are impressive. The story was not out-and-out BAD, for a trekkish comic book. But the fx visuals were obviously where all the makers' interest/attention/money went. The direction alternated between sluggish and confusing (one was not at all sure exactly who was doing what and with what and to whom at at least one crucial juncture). The "acting" was mostly very bad indeed. There was no basis to most of the line readings besides a hint of "It was that way on the page and the director told me I was supposed to be mad/sad/scared/whatever. Okay, so it was a SF series pilot. Since when is that an excuse for correctable shoddiness in areas when should be regarded as essential to a dramatic medium. I'm astonished the pilot sold the series. Or is the money also in the hands of technerds?
| 0
|
train_7335
|
With Ralph Bakshi most of his films appear to be like two-edged swords. You'll get something awesome out of it but only if you put up with the silly and the unnecessarily cheezy. The Lord of the Rings was a great adaptation of the story which perhaps didn't always shine in the animation department.Fire and Ice is a great achievement from Bakshi from an animation point of view. The rotoscoping is a lot more detailed and the animation has a vibrant look to it. You still get some of the dull still-cells and slightly blurred background paintings but on the over-all the look has definitely gotten better since Bakshi's last fantasy epic. The animation has almost a realistic-naturalistic style to it, and unlike in LOTR where this style was often at odds with the actual content, here it enhances the film's unique atmosphere.Unfortunately the film fails to create a meaningful story out of its simple setting and in fact most of the characters' motivations are pretty blurred. Lorn and Tigra are easy cases but even the main villain Necron was difficult to follow not to mention That Guy with Furry Face Mask (also known as just 'That Guy'). Even though most of the voice actor's were appropriate, there are some odd quirks in the audio-department and Tigra especially sounds really terrible whenever she's screaming.However, I believe the film's inherent entertainment value outweighs its unnecessarily silly execution of the plot-line. The scant clad of the characters is something you'll never get over but it helps you remind yourself that perhaps this film isn't even intended to be taken too seriously. It's still a hella cool and really funny.
| 1
|
train_8216
|
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** After two so-so outings ("Magnum Force" and "The Enforcer"), Dirty Harry seems to have regained his stride in "Sudden Impact," a gripping thriller that wisely plays to its strengths: the charisma of Clint Eastwood, who also directed, and a story that spends just enough time on exposition and reserves its energy for the big scenes.For once, the case takes Harry outside his native San Francisco (where he's again in trouble with his superiors for his "shoot first, ask questions later" tactics), to the hamlet of San Paulo. There, (WARNING: Potential spoiler) a group of lowlifes is being gruesomely murdered, one at a time, by a woman whom they gang-raped years earlier, and whose sister has been in a state of catatonia ever since the attack.The killer is portrayed by Sondra Locke, and she makes the character of Jennifer Spencer an interesting mix of compassion and cold-bloodedness. Locke's cold eyes and frosty voice, when either trying to comfort her hospitalized sister or dispensing vengeance toward the rapists, are very effective in painting a portrait of a woman wronged whose years of suffering and rage are now beginning to bear deadly fruit.The rapists are a despicable lot, especially the leader, who has "psycho nutjob" practically stamped on his forehead, and a lesbian who seems almost one of the guys, despite her anatomical inability to participate. The flashback scenes, while not graphically explicit, are nightmarish enough, and clearly intended to make the audience cheer for Jennifer as she kills her assailants.Some will dismiss "Sudden Impact" as trash: a mindless, manipulative revenge tale. On a certain level this is true, but it's well-done trash. What works to the movie's advantage is the strength of the Sondra Locke performance, giving us a complex character whose wounds are more visible in her paintings than in her gestures or speech. What we have here is an action movie with a point of view.You can take or leave the idea that some wrongs deserve to be punished by any means necessary, but as the mystery behind the slayings becomes clear to Harry (a realization that, wisely, is not spelled out with dialogue), he is presented with a choice -- what to do about a killer whose motivations he can sympathize with but whose conduct he is bound by law to not tolerate. This makes the story more interesting than the usual Dirty Harry fare.The movie's other redeeming quality is Eastwood's direction. This is, after all, a Dirty Harry movie, and Eastwood knows the character better than anyone else. The movie is directed with style and wit, and edited to give the action scenes a big payoff. Some of the best "Harry moments" in the entire series are here, including Harry's best-known line, "Go ahead -- make my day.""Sudden Impact" is a movie that has the courage of its convictions in presenting a tale about a despicable crime and the brutal consequences that follow. It is also a riveting detective story, well made and well told. And it is certainly never dull. On those criteria, it succeeds tremendously.
| 1
|
train_15488
|
First off I really enjoyed Zombi 2 by Lucio Fulci. This film was utter trash. I couldn't stand to watch it. The storyline was a joke, the acting was a joke, and the fact that Zombi 3 has nothing to do with Zombi 2 is even more a joke.We jump from Voodoo to DEATH 1 THE HARMFUL AGENT BRINING People BACK TO LIFE. Whatever, this movie isn't worth the $1.00 it cost to rent it. I really enjoyed lucio fulci movies but this one was horrible. If Zombi 3 is an indicator for how zombi 4 and 5 are going to be I think I will just skip them.Zombi 2 is an awesome flique tho.
| 0
|
train_8575
|
This is a movie that i can watch over and over and never ever get tired of it, it has lot's of laughs, guns, action, crime,, good one liners, and a decent plot, with an over the top, Donald Sutherland in a rather comedic role as an Assasain. Tia Carerra looks as hot as she ever did and can act too, Thomas Ian Griffin is great in this as the lead character "Max" a DEA agent Diane is the FBI agent, played by Carerra, and John Lithgow from Frazier on TV, plays the bad guy,, "Livingston". The plot centers around Max and Diane trying to capture Livingston while they fight and argue with each other about who gets the money for the respective agencies, throw into the mix the Assassain Sutherland, who pretty much has all the good one liners, this is the perfect crime caper, there is the usual love story,, but played very differently than you would think by Carerra and Griffith. You also have the Russian mafia, Italian Mafia, and Chineese Mafia here thrown into the mix,, the film is shot in Boston,, where you have some great shots , and locals,, great photography and music in this film, this movie is just the epitome of a crime comedy,, it has everything that one could ever want. Check out Sutherland's toilet in a particular scene,, very unusual. this film is a riot and will make you laugh real hard 10 plus for me.
| 1
|
train_23492
|
The Underground Comedy Movie, is possibly the worst train wrecks I've ever seen. Luckily I didn't pay for this movie, and my friend reluctantly agreed to watch it again siting that it was so awful but he needed to prove to me how awful it was. I love off color comedy. I figured at the least it would have that and I would be entertained. No, instead the acting was so awful, the "jokes" were extremely cheesy, and the plot was no where to be found. Maybe there wasn't supposed to be a plot so I can't hold that against this movie. It's pretty sad where the funniest thing in a comedy is an old woman having her head hit off by a bat.....by Batman...A man dressed in a baseball uniform wielding a bat. Hilarious. Simply genius. I got the feeling watching this movie that its creators made it and laughed hysterically with their friends about it. Perhaps this was full of inside jokes we just didn't understand. Or perhaps it's the worst piece of trash ever made and it should be locked away in a vault and dumped in the Arctic Ocean.P.S. Don't buy this movie!
| 0
|
train_21968
|
The only good thing about this unfunny dreck is that I didn't have to pay for it. I saw it for free at college. And if a college student can't find humor in something that was free, it's hopeless.Stale acting and poor jokes cannot be masked by an excellent, yet bewildering set design (that goes out of its way to market Volkswagon Beetles). I don't know what Michaels Myers was doing in this movie, but I have never seen anything more depressing. This was nothing more than a blatant effort to capitalize on the previous success of the Grinch (which has its opponents, but I enjoyed it very much). It's difficult not to sit through this failure and wonder what better projects were passed over to fund it.You want a funny Seuss adaptation? Go with the Grinch.
| 0
|
train_3548
|
Just saw this movie version of Frank Loesser's Guys and Dolls for the third time with my mother who had never seen this before. She was pleasantly surprised by the singing voices of Jean Simmons and Marlon Brando. And she thought the Havana sequences where Simmons and Brando dance up a storm were excellent. Those were pretty impressive to me too and were usually the highlights of the film. Directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz, this movie which originated as a story by Damon Runyon takes a while with the slow pacing of the non-musical scenes at first but pulls you in after a while. The other story with Frank Sinatra and Vivian Blaine wasn't as compelling to me but still had their charms especially during the "Sue Me" number. Also loved Stubby Kaye's "Sit Down, You're Rocking the Boat" number and the performances of Sheldon Leonard and B. S. Pully. With a theatrical look throughout, Guys and Dolls isn't a great film musical but certainly a very good one.
| 1
|
train_18047
|
REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES (2 outta 5 stars) No, this is not a long-lost ancestor to the classic George A. Romero zombie flicks. This is a low-budget potboiler from 1936 that probably seemed very cool to audiences of the time... but seems awfully routine these days. There is actually a pretty good scene at the start of a soldier firing off his pistol into a horde of approaching zombie soldiers... and a close-up of bullets entering the bare chest of one of them. The effect looks hopelessly fake these days but in 1936 I'm sure it had audiences gasping. The story concerns the search for the secret of mind control... ostensibly to create an unstoppable zombie army... but later as a means for one character to win the woman he loves. The movie is barely an hour long but moves at a snail's pace so it seems feature-length, believe me! There really isn't much to recommend it... you may get some amusement from the faked studio shots of the star "wading" through a "swamp". The ending is interesting... so I'd say the movie is worth seeing at least once. More than likely you will see it as an extra feature on some cheap "4 movies on 1 DVD" compilation at Wal-Mart for five bucks. Hey, it's well worth the money...
| 0
|
train_22150
|
Maaan, where do i start with this god awful movie. Bad bad bad story telling. I do not know what the director was thinking when he made this movie. Namaste London was quite an enjoyable movie to be honest..even the soundtrack was good. But in this one..oh my good..for a movie which is supposed to be a musical one..the songs are soooo bad. AR Rahman should have been the music director. Given two great actors a much better job should have been done by the director. Even though the first half sucks, the last 30 mins of the movie are OK. Performances from Salman and Ajay save the movie from being a total disaster.Watch it if you have nothing better to do. The last good movie from Bollywood i watched ( and i do watch a load of them) is Dev D and Wake Up Sid.
| 0
|
train_10201
|
It's a very good movie, not only for the fans of Lady Death comics, but also for those who like animated movies/series of adventure and fantasy.The film is about a innocent girl who is about killed for something she hadn't done, but for be who she is daughter of the ruler of hell, Lucifer himself.Then she seeks revenge...and the rest you better see it from the movie.I liked the movie a lot, the characters are like the original comics, form Chaos. I never had the chance of read the the first parts of the story in comics, only the last ones, after the passages in the movie, so I cannot tell you if the events are exactly like the comics, but...one way or another it's the story of Lady Death!
| 1
|
train_10047
|
To all the miserable people who have done everything from complain about the dialogue, the budget, the this and the that....who wants to hear it? IF you missed the point of this beyond-beautiful movie, that's your loss. The rest of us who deeply love this movie do not care what you think. I am a thirthysomething guy who has seen thousands of movies in my life, and this one stands in its own entity, in my book. It was not supposed to be a documentary, or a completely factual account of what happened that night. It is the most amazing love story ever attempted. I know that it is the cynical 90's and the millennium has everyone in a tizzy, but come on. Someone on this comments board complained that it made too much money! How lame is that? It made bundles of money in every civilized country on the planet, and is the top grossing film in the planet. I will gladly side with the majority this time around. Okay, cynics, time to crawl back under your rock, I am done.
| 1
|
train_6076
|
... or was Honest Iago actually smirking at the end, as he died?Loved how the Bard's iambic pentameter just rolled of Fishburne's tongue, with excellent clarity and emotion.And how Branagh made Honest Iago seem to celebrate his own evilness...This is a wonderful film.I have often thought that Shakespeare is inherently not film-friendly: He uses words to create pictures in our minds, which creates a perennial battle with the camera, which only knows to show us what we need to think and feel. Every effort to film Shakespeare ought really to be celebrated. It is not an easy thing to do.
| 1
|
train_19548
|
I chose this movie by the cover which was a bad move. It wasn't funny at all and the main characters were obnoxious. The girl was beautiful but the story and the acting were terrible. It had absolutely nothing to do with surfing. Terrible movie with a surf "theme" that had nothing to do with surfing and no real surfers. Catherine Zeta Jones was beautiful and the movie will probably see a resurgence just becuase she is in the limelight now, being married with Gordon Gekko and all, but if you haven't seen it don't waste your time. A bad movie with GREAT surfing, REAL surfers and AMAZING, BEAUTIFUL cinematography was IN GOD'S HANDS.
| 0
|
train_20062
|
I haven't seen the original, but just wanted to drop a quick note to anyone who happens to scroll down this far: Wicker Man is the worst movie I've seen this year. Maybe even in two years. I wish I could ask the theater for my money back or turn back time to warn myself not to see it.I'll give it two positive nods: The sarcasm of Cage's character at least got some laughs from me and the scenery of the island was beautiful. Sorry, that's it. Here come the jeers. The movie's plot is only propelled forward because other characters won't give Cage any straight answers--and he puts up with this!!! How this could go on for over an hour of my time(much less days in the movie) is beyond me. Not to mention that the plot is full of holes. You leave the theater with enough unanswered questions to fill a library. How anyone could read this script and think, "Yes, people should pay $11 to see this shady outline of what a film should look like" is beyond me.Do not go see this flick. Or even rent it on DVD.
| 0
|
train_11574
|
This movie is a half-documentary...and it is pretty interesting....This is a good movie...based on the true story of how a bunch of norwegian saboturs managed to stop the heavy water production in Rukjan, Norway and the deliverance of the rest of the heavy water to Germany.This movie isn't perfect and it could have been a bit better... the best part of the movie is that some of the saboturs are played by themselves!!!If you're interested in history of WWII and film this is a movie that's worth a look!!
| 1
|
train_5523
|
Ironically the most talked-about American film in the 2008 New York Film Festival is 98% in Spanish. The extra-long film's controversy began at the Cannes Festival. There were love-hate notices, and considerable doubts about commercial prospects. As consolation the star, Benicio Del Toro, got the Best Actor award there. I'm talking about Steven Soderbergh's 'Che,' of course. That's the name it's going by in this version, shown in New York as at Cannes in two 2-hour-plus segments without opening title or end credits. 'Che' is certainly appropriate since Ernesto "Che" Guevara is in almost every scene. Del Toro is impressive, hanging in reliably through thick and thin, from days of glorious victory in part one to months of humiliating defeat in part two, appealing and simpatico in all his varied manifestations, even disguised as a bald graying man to sneak into Bolivia. It's a terrific performance; one wishes it had a better setting.If you are patient enough to sit through the over four hours, with an intermission between the two sections, there are rewards. There's an authentic feel throughout--fortunately Soderbergh made the decision to film in Spanish (though some of the actors, oddly enough in the English segments especially, are wooden). You get a good outline of what guerrilla warfare, Che style, was like: the teaching, the recruitment of campesinos, the morality, the discipline, the hardship, and the fighting--as well as Che's gradual morphing from company doctor to full-fledged military leader. Use of a new 9-pound 35 mm-quality RED "digital high performance cine camera" that just became available in time for filming enabled DP Peter Andrews and his crew to produce images that are a bit cold, but at times still sing, and are always sharp and smooth.The film is in two parts--Soderbergh is calling them two "films," and the plan is to release them commercially as such. First is 'The Argentine,' depicting Che's leadership in jungle and town fighting that led up to the fall of Havana in the late 50's, and the second is 'Guerrilla,' and concerns Che's failed effort nearly a decade later in Bolivia to spearhead a revolution, a fruitful mission that led to Guevara's capture and execution in 1967. The second part was to have been the original film and was written first and, I think, shot first. Producer Laura Bickford says that part two is more of a thriller, while part one is more of an action film with big battle scenes. Yes, but both parts have a lot in common--too much--since both spend a large part of their time following the guerrillas through rough country. Guerrilla an unmitigated downer since the Bolivian revolt was doomed from the start. The group of Cubans who tried to lead it didn't get a friendly reception from the Bolivian campesinos, who suspected foreigners, and thought of the Cuban communists as godless rapists. There is a third part, a kind of celebratory black and white interval made up of Che's speech at the United Nations in 1964 and interviews with him at that time, but that is inter-cut in the first segment. The first part also has Fidel and is considerably more upbeat, leading as it does to the victory in Santa Clara in 1959 that led to the fall of the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista in Cuba.During 'Guerilla' I kept thinking how this could indeed work as a quality European-style miniseries, which might begin with a shortened version of Walter Salles's 'Motorcycle Diaries' and go on to take us to Guevara's fateful meeting with Fidel in Mexico and enlistment in the 26th of July Movement. There could be much more about his extensive travels and diplomatic missions. This is far from a complete picture of the man, his childhood interest in chess, his lifelong interest in poetry, the books he wrote; even his international fame is only touched on. And what about his harsh, cruel side? Really what Soderbergh is most interested in isn't Che, but revolution, and guerrilla warfare. The lasting impression that the 4+ hours leave is of slogging through woods and jungle with wounded and sick men and women and idealistic dedication to a the cause of ending the tyranny of the rich. Someone mentioned being reminded of Terrence Malick's 'The Tin Red Line,' and yes, the meandering, episodic battle approach is similar; but 'The Thin Red Line' has stronger characters (hardly anybody emerges forcefully besides Che), and it's a really good film. This is an impressive, but unfinished and ill-fated, effort.This 8-years-gestating, heavily researched labor of love (how many more Ocean's must come to pay for it?) is a vanity project, too long for a regular theatrical release and too short for a miniseries. Radical editing--or major expansion--would have made it into something more successful, and as it is it's a long slog, especially in the second half.It's clear that this slogging could have been trimmed down, though it's not so clear what form the resulting film would have taken--but with a little bit of luck it might have been quite a good one.
| 1
|
train_6740
|
The fully rounded character of the principal role of this movie, that of the cop torn up by his past and on a path of self-destruction so clear to the viewer, is unique for its time, 1950. Along with the haunting music and the well written plot, the film is a prime example of film noir at its best. Close-ups of Dana's eyes reveal the anguish within, Karl Malden excels as his boss, who brooks no nonsense but also has compassion for those under his command in the precinct. Otto Preminger made this type of movie just about his own. If there is any fault it would be with the breath taking beauty of Gene Tierney who seems oddly out of place with the hardened cop. Their scenes in the cafe, however, are wonderful and ring true. Tom Tully, in the bit part of her father is perfect as is Gary Merrill as the hood. Great lighting and mood setting. The building where the deadly deeds take place highly atmospheric, I love the old woman in the basement. 8 out of 10.
| 1
|
train_14300
|
This movie does not rock, as others have said. I found it really boring and silly. The story is about this metal high school kid who idolizes this really bad heavy metal singer. The singer dies, but not before making one last album that is to be played over the radio at, of course, midnight on Halloween (which would actually make it November 1st, a much less potent date to be sure). The kid gets a copy of the record and it contains secret hidden back-play messages. It also is the key that opens the door so that the really bad metal singer can return to bring havoc and death to the world. The first part of this film is not a horror film at all, but rather an After School Special. We see the metal kid (the outsider) tormented over and over by the popular kids. And he fails to learn the most important lesson in high school movies: When the cool kids who bully you suddenly invite you to a party, DON'T GO! It is a trap. Especially if it is a pool party. Anybody surprised when he ends up in the water?? It was such an After School Special that I kept waiting for Melissa Sue Anderson to show up and teach Jody Foster a lesson.So back to the horror part of the film. So this metal kid gets some powers and instead of using them to kill the bully boys (which would have made much more sense), he freaks out and tries to protect all of the bully boys and girls from harm. What? A sensitive hero? What fun is that in a horror movie? Thank goodness Carrie White did not follow this lesson. He actually tries to PREVENT having the music played at the Halloween Dance, the very music that could unleash a power to kill all the kids who had been mean to him. If it were me, I would have put that music on, and pronto. The rest of the movie is about this metal kid going around town trying to kill the horrible metal star he idolized. Why not partner with him and REALLY do some damage. Why you ask? It seems he is in love with one of the popular girls and does not want her hurt..more appropriate for a Molly Ringwald film. Is this a horror film or an episode of Beauty and the Beast? The movie just goes on and on at this point, with no scares, horror, or anything worth watching. If you went to high school in the late 80s like I did, this movie is fun to have a little flashback to fashions and big hair, but that is it for this film. Skip it and stay home and just listen to some KISS.
| 0
|
train_15501
|
Slaughter High the tale of revenge by a nerdy guy who fell victim to one of the coolest and coldest jokes in cinema history. Unfortunately after the promising opening the flick went straight to hell. A very tedious and redundant mess with mediocre slashings and a final half hour that sucked on a whole new level of suckiness. The guy who played the nerd actually killed himself shortly after the flick was released. If you wanna rent the flick stop it after the prank and remember, choose life.
| 0
|
train_4231
|
While returning from a Christmas Eve shopping trip, an abused suburban housewife (Basinger) finds herself in a fight for survival after a disagreement with a group of delinquent youths takes a violent turn.Suffering the indignity of a straight to DVD release here in the U.K., Susan Montford's directorial debut will perhaps not be given the recognition it deserves. This is a shame, as the standard of the writing, directing and acting is very good indeed, and certainly surpasses the quality of your average straight to DVD flick.Kim Basinger gives her best performance in some time as the downtrodden wife of an abusive husband (Craig Sheffer). While Sheffer is not really given anything more to do than be a threatening presence, it is in their brief scenes together that Basinger connects - showing painful vulnerability yet hinting at the rage that will eventually boil over in her confrontations with the youths. It's a truly great, understated performance, her transformation from victim to aggressor is seamlessly played.Lukas Haas I initially thought was miscast, as he (along with the other three youths) just did not seem much of a threat. However, had all four youths been more physically imposing, the later scenes in which Basinger turns the tables against them would not have worked at all. The fact that these are four average men, albeit slightly unhinged, is the key to why the film works as well as it does.Apart from a few pacing issues during the latter half of the movie and a couple of cheesy lines here and there, what we have here is a great thriller that actually leaves the viewer with something to think about when the film is over. Some may be put off by the slow - burn nature of the opening scenes, or the abrupt ending. Others by the at times brutal violence. I say give it a chance, it's certainly more deserving of your time than Saw V.
| 1
|
train_14698
|
A scientist and his girl friend are out driving when his speeding causes a car crash. He escapes unharmed but she is decapitated. He saves her head, brings it to his house and keeps it alive (!!!!). He then proceeds to search out models and strippers for the perfect body for the head. His crippled assistant watches over the head which starts talking and has a telepathic (or telepathetic) link to a deformed monster kept in the closet....As you can see, this is pretty stupid stuff, but I had a certain fondness for it. When I grew up in the late 1970s, a local TV station showed this movie about 20 times each year (no exaggeration). They showed it always on Saturday afternoon TV--uncut. Seeing this on TV back then was great! Explicit blood and gore along with a gruesome monster and sleazy sexploitation--who cares if it was good? Seeing it now I realize how lousy this really is.The acting is perfectly wretched, the production values are nonexistent, the script is pretty dumb and (aside from the still pretty disgusting gore) this is dull stuff. There's also a mild cat fight between two women and the admittedly great monster at the end. Also add in an ending which leaves tons of loose ends. On one hand this is an interesting example of a 1960s exploitation film. On the other its utter trash. Either way, it's not a good movie but is a must-see (for one time only) for horror and gore fans.Also the head's laugh is pretty creepy. Note the end credits which gets the TITLE wrong (calling it "The HEAD That Wouldn't Die")!
| 0
|
train_9647
|
Deeply emotional. It can't leave you neutral.Yes it's a love story between 2 18 years old boys. But it's only the body of this movie. And it's been removed. You only feel what happened with these boys. You feel the soul of the movie. With of course some action, some sex, but this is no pornography, too many feelings.It was only a summer "story", and it became, from love to hate, almost to death, the most important time of their lives. I loved it, you will too, whatever your feelings are.
| 1
|
train_7185
|
Sitting on the front porch of his Burbank home, Ted Mapes told me that he and Reed Hadley wore the exact same size in every item of clothing except hat.Ted, one of the greatest of the stunt men, said that every time Zorro put on his mask, he was the one on the screen.That was a little bit of an exaggeration: There were times that Zorro was obviously Reed Hadley, but in the stunts we can be satisfied it was Ted at work.And what stunts! "Zorro's Fighting Legion" is, as witness the comments here, one of the greatest of serials. It is exciting and generally very well made.Reed Hadley was a fine actor, and, as someone else commented, he made a very good fop.But, admittedly, it is the action that makes this movie so great.And what else could we expect, with direction by that excellent team, Witney and English, with great music from the amazingly prolific William Lava (the listing here says he was uncredited, but that is incorrect; those other composers listed here were indeed uncredited, and I don't know if they did write any of the music -- it sounds like Lava), and with villainy from, among others, the great Charles King, and with dozens of bit parts?Also noteworthy was a villain played by the radio Tarzan, Jim Pierce, who was Edgar Rice Burroughs' son-in-law. (I urge you to read his mini-bio.) There is one chapter that slows things down depressingly, but, heck, it's only a few minutes long (maybe 20) and when you wade through it, well, you're back to the excitement.Turner Classic Movies deserves a great big THANK YOU for presenting this excellent serial, and we should ask TCM to bring us more.And we should thank everyone involved that we get to see it as a chapter-play, or serial, and not as a re-cut feature.
| 1
|
train_4676
|
I found this movie thought-provoking, and its ambiguity refreshing in a world of quick-fix films where we are manipulated into loving the "good guy" and hating the "bad guy." Scott Cohen, a very handsome television actor, does a great job of portraying the family black sheep/lost child who aspires to gain his father's love and respect, as well as that of his widowed sister-in-law with whom he apparently has a history. Judd Hirsch plays against his usual good guy image as a father who triangulated his sons and now is left with the one he always rejected.When I saw this at the Tribeca Film Festival, I was enchanted by the lovely way the sawdust was used to portray a family tradition, as explained by the director.This is a fitting successor to the classic "Ordinary People." I just realized, Judd Hirsch was in that, too!
| 1
|
train_18037
|
What? You were not aware that Scooby-Doo battled zombies? Well, you might also not be aware of this little film that was directed by Victor Halperin, who had also directed White Zombie four years earlier. That would probably make it the second zombie film made.No, don't go looking for Dorothy Stone to expose her breasts as you would expect in most zombie films, and don't even look for any brains being eaten. This is 1936, you know.So, what you will see is typical of the period - lots of talking.You do get to see Dean Jagger (Twelve O'Clock High ) and Bela Lugosi's eyes, but that is about it. Zombies in Cambodia, indeed!
| 0
|
train_19755
|
I wasn't particularly impressed by this movie that has lackluster music and only lasts 40 minutes. Thank God, because I was falling asleep. I makes excellent use of time lapse photography to display the passage of time in the movement of light and shadow, people, water, clouds, etc. Unfortunately, that's all it is.My preference is for its predecessor, the excellent Koyaanisqatsi made in 1983 at 87 minutes and to prove that a sequel can be better than the original, Powaqqatsi made in 1988 running 90 minutes.Try them both.
| 0
|
train_390
|
The first thing I thought when I saw this films was: It is not really a film, at least it is not what we imagine spontaneously when we hear the word "film". it is entirely symbolic, everything in it has a figurative meaning. So if you are not used to express thing in a symbolic way, you will find it strange, if you are not acquainted with philosophy, religion, spiritual life, you will think it's just a fairy-tale... and even a weird one, chaotic. For me "The legend of Zu" is perfectly transparent. And I do like it. It tells us in images the story about the fight between light and darkness, the fight that is as old as humanity, and every one who is in search of the sens in this life is confronted with it. The film is obviously made by Buddhists. I am not a Buddhist. My religion and the vision of the world and human is different. But as far as we are all humans and have the same human nature we necessarily have common experiences and can understand each other. It is a really beautiful film! And I which we had more films like this - films that have a meaning. There are too many empty stories which are good only to make time pass more quickly.
| 1
|
train_828
|
I noticed that A NEW HOPE and THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK are in the TOP 10, but that this one isn't even in the TOP 100.This movie has a bad reputation because of Ewoks, but there are so many reasons to love this movie:-The Rescue of Han Solo from Jabba: This official wraps up the Han Solo in debt sub-plot that was established when we first met the character in A NEW HOPE.-The Emperor was Finally Revealled: Well alright this might not work as well now that the prequels are out but this was the first time we saw The Emperor as kids.-The Speeder Bike Chase: Alright, so this was a special effects moment. But it was definitely one of the most memorable and exciting moments in all the films!-The 3 Part Climax: 1) The Battle of Endor (Led by Han and Leia) 2) Luke Confronts his Father & The Fall of the Emperor 3) The Destruction of the Second Death Star (Lando's Moment)-The Final Celebration with Our Heroes: Like I said, this movie gets a lot of crap because of the Ewoks but I think it's kind of cool that while the entire galaxy celebrates the FALL OF THE EMPIRE, our heroes are having their own private party in the woods with each other.All in all this was a great final chapter for our heroes and a fitting end to the STAR WARS story.
| 1
|
train_5799
|
At long last! One of Michael Jackson's most well known and beloved films comes to DVD! In Michael Jackson Moonwalker, (Michael Jackson) stars as Michael. A man with powers that are not of this world. Michael must save Sean (Sean Lennon), Katie (Kellie Parker), Zeke (Brandon Quintin Adams), and the rest of the worlds children from drug lord Frankie Lideo aka Mr. Big (Joe Pesci) who's mission in life is to get all of the worlds children hooked on drugs! A NOTE TO PEOPLE IN THE USA LOOKING FOR THIS FILM ON DVD: Make sure when buying this film on DVD you buy Warners Product #WK00817 as NTSC Region 3 which plays on North American NTSC Region 1 players.
| 1
|
train_14955
|
I remember going to see the movie in the summer of '78 with my parents, and being pretty into it at the time. Of course, I was seven at the time.Right before the Jackson movies came out, my wife and I rented this movie since she had never seen it and I was feeling nostalgic.Ralph Bakshi ran out of money about mid-way through the animation process for this movie, and was forced to drastically cut corners on this production. Since this movie was done primarily with rotoscoping, the animation technique for people on a budget, this is saying something. Much of this movie is animation only in the very loosest sense of the word. There are some scenes which are very obviously just people standing in front of a screen, with maybe some animation effects superimposed on top of them.Because of budget constraints, the movie -- already a compression of "The Fellowship of the Rings" and part of "The Two Towers" -- was pared down even more. What you get is sort of like a film-strip version of the Cliff Notes of the books.Its not all bad, though, the animation brings a warmth to it, that I found lacking in the Jackson movies. Its nice to imagine what it could have been like with decent funding.This movie is also noteworthy for having the sequel which never came. Several years later, a half-hearted half-hour long TV special was aired, which was meant to wrap things up. All I will say about that is that it was a musical.
| 0
|
train_407
|
O my gosh... Just give me a minute to breath. This movie takes you on an awesome ride and doesn't let you go until the very last blow in your face ending. This is the the movie for fans of Stormriders and such. Legend of Zu was beautifully created, although I didn't like a few things, they used alot of stand ins. I wanted to see the real person fight but, oh well... a few small let downs,and I didn't really like it a lot until I watched it again, when you understand it more it totally kicks A**! I encourage anyone who ever wanted to see a true Asian movie, to see this movie. I give this movie one of my highest ratings.Go and see it when it comes out in America!!!
| 1
|
train_13056
|
In my book "Basic Instinct" was a perfect film. It had outstanding acting on the parts of Stone, Douglas and all the supporting actors to the tiniest role. It had marvelous photography, music and the noirest noir script ever. All of it adding up to a film that is as good as it will ever get!This sequel is the exact opposite, it cannot possibly get worse, bad acting and a lame script, combined with totally inept direction, this is really bad, boring, annoying. The only thing that somewhat keeps you concentrated is the relatively short wait for the next scene that is an exact re-enacted copy of the original. These copies are so bad they make you laugh and I laughed a lot in spite of myself, because it was like watching the demolishing of a shining monument. The only thing that is good in this horrible mess are the excerpts of the Jerry Goldsmith score of BI1. Michael Caton-Jones and the half-wit responsible for the script even included the "There is no smoking in this room" dialog in the interrogation scene and yes she sends her attorney (who is now a solicitor) away! I am sorry I have seen this awful film that should have never been made! It does damage to the original, so bad is it. The only redeeming value is the realization that cosmetic surgery (and I am sure Ms Stone afforded the best surgeon money can buy) can do a good job but can obviously not restore the perfection of the original. And what concerns the human body applies to film-making, too. There should be a law: Don't ever make a sequel to a perfect film!
| 0
|
train_5245
|
I thought this movie was LOL funny. It's a fun, not to be taken seriously, movie about one man's twisted views on life, love, and... well, ladies "from the lowly bus station skank, to the high-class débutante... bus station skank." Tim meadows plays a guy (Leon Phelps) who was raised by in a Playboy-style mansion by a Hugh Hefner-esquire father figure, surrounded constantly by beautiful porn models and actresses. When his "father" kicks him out on the street he must learn to fend for himself with nothing but the chauvinistic outlook on life that his youth has taught him... that and an unfathomable, nearly mystical level of charm and dumb luck. And so the hijinx begin! If you haven't seen this movie and you enjoy a light-hearted, semi-mindless, comedy/love story, then I highly recommend renting "the Ladies' Man".
| 1
|
train_12829
|
First: I bought it at the video store. Second: I watched it. Third: It was boring. Fourth: It was not funny. Fifth: Most of the antics were lame. And last, but not least: It's not only a bad movie, it's a total fiasco.I am a huge Adam Sandler fan despite this disappointing and forgotten film. I pity it because it was his first movie. Even if you are a huge Adam Sandler fan, don't bother watching this movie. Instead, just take the video, board a yacht, and throw it overboard.
| 0
|
train_11115
|
I believe that The Sopranos is an awesome show because of all the supporting characters in it. i have bought every video so far and am waiting for the rest to be released. In all 42 episodes so far, the best one is definitely episode #3, Denial, Anger, Acceptance. This episode deals with my most favorite character of all time in The Sopranos. His name was Brendan Filone. He was killed for hijacking the wrong truck and accidentally killing a truck driver. Brendan was awesome because he was actually one of the few characters who actually stood against Tony and his gang. In the end, he ended up getting shot through the eye while taking a bath, and that's my most favorite scene ever in the history of The Sopranos. Brendan Filone is # 1 for me. And my # 2 most favorite character ever was Matthew Bevilaqua, who was killed after attempting to murder Christopher Moltisanti. Tony and Pussy shoot him in Hucklebarney park after they catch and torture him. My # 3 most favorite character is Sean Gismonte, who was killed right after shooting Christopher. And finally, my # 4 most favorite character is Chucky Signore, one of Uncle Junior's henchmen. He was killed on a boat by Tony. All the awesome characters are dead. That's the only bad thing about the Sopranos. All the cool guys always get killed. You know what would be great to change about the Sopranos? They should have a whole episode where they show all the dead supporting characters in hell and they are all trying to torture Chris, Tony, Uncle Junior, Silvio, and Paulie, because they need to get their revenge. Brendan Filone shall strike back!!!!!!!!!1
| 1
|
train_3553
|
Guys and Dolls is a movie itching for a remake. It was made forty-eight years ago. Its two main stars are either dead or 409 pounds. Although a remake, with big stars now, would be box-office success, it would not be able to capture the magic that went into this version. Its boundless energy can't be recaptured, nor can the pure joy you get when watching something like this: a huge, widescreen, big entertainment movie.Marlon Brando (who last clocked in at 409 lbs. last time I heard) plays Sky Masterson, one of the biggest gamblers in New York. Frank Sinatra is Nathan Detroit, whose as-often-as-he-can-find-a-speakeasy-for-it crap game is city-wide famous. However, when the one place he has left to hold it is charging $1,000, Detroit needs the money fast. He bets Masterson $1,000 that he can't take missionary Sarah Brown (Jean Simmons) to Havana with him the next day.Guys and Dolls is basically nothing more than unsavory types singing and dancing, which usually, as it does here, add up to fun. It's obvious to see how this was a Broadway musical: there weren't that many sets, and the scenes were long. If I was to complain about one thing, it's how uneven the songs were. At times, there were two songs in a scene; other times, thirty minutes went by without one. Guys and Dolls is never boring, just a great time.My rating: 8/10Not Rated.
| 1
|
train_16839
|
this film was totally not what i expected. if this film was called something else no one would even notice the difference between the two. its really strange because i cannot see the point . the prequel and sequel lets just say don't make sense, the don't even match . maybe i am naive but ain't a vol 1 & vol 2 meant to match up. carlito was in jail in the 1st one and dies in the original, and in the prequel he lives and don't go jail. the plot was OK , but they should have changed round some actors and some of the story line and the name of the film and it would have been a good film .i really expected it to end like the other one started. if some one has a opinion on this post it please.
| 0
|
train_6153
|
The obvious parallels between Walt Disney's charming fantasy Bedknobs and Broomsticks and C.S. Lewis Chronicles of Narnia are pretty apparent. There are more coincidences here than comparing Bedknobs and Broomsticks than with Mary Poppins even though a lot of the same creative talent went into the two Disney films.Like The Chronicles of Narnia it involves some English children leaving London during the blitz and coming to live in the country. And those kids have to deal with a world of magic. But unlike C.S. Lewis the Rawlins kids have the magic invade their world and help defeat the people making a mess of it in the here and now. No retreating to a fantasy kingdom like the Pevensie kids.No heavy duty philosophy here from Walt Disney except maybe it's not a good thing to mess with witches even apprentice ones like Angela Lansbury who learn their magic from a charlatan like David Tomlinson. Ms. Lansbury didn't get to be one of the most bankable of performers for nothing. She carries her own brand of magic that even the special effects boys at Disney couldn't top. And they won an Oscar for the Magic Kingdom in that department for this film.Two performers made their farewell to films in Bedknobs and Broomsticks. Tessie O'Shea played her last role in this film, she graced many a film in the United Kingdom as one of their best loved music hall performers. And that grand character actor Reginald Owen as the retired general who leads the Old Home Guard in war and in song bids adieu to film audiences around the world.The team of Robert B. Sherman and Richard M. Sherman who wrote the score for Mary Poppins wrote a good and serviceable one here. The Age Of Not Believing was nominated for an Oscar, but lost to the Theme from Shaft. Personally though I do like David Tomlinson's tribute to that most colorful of London streets, Portabello Road.Bedknobs and Broomsticks is a fine fantasy film that still holds up well after almost 40 years. Imagine what it would be like with computer generated graphics.
| 1
|
train_6158
|
What can i say about a tale such as this? This magical tale has followed me from my early childhood,evoking warm memories in my heart.The characters take you to to so many whimsical places making you want more of each scene. For example in the market there were so many different flavors of lore. I loved the exotic dancers that accompanied the steel drums.The story line was wonderful.I wanted so badly for Landsbury to decide to keep the precocious children and for her to also stay with Mr.Brown,and find the other half of the spell so that the men less armor could win the war.I am still a child inside,and this movie appeals to my inner child like no other. This movie is my definite favorite of all times. I hope that all children will be able to watch this classic and be swept away,and transported into another time.
| 1
|
train_21948
|
No redeeming features, this film is rubbish. Its jokes don't begin to be funny. The humour for children is pathetic, and the attempts to appeal to adults just add a tacky smuttishness to the whole miserable package. Sitting through it with my children just made me uncomfortable about what might be coming next. I couldn't enjoy the film at all. Although my child for whom the DVD was bought enjoyed the fact that she owned a new DVD, neither she nor her sisters expressed much interest in seeing it again, unlike with Monsters inc, Finding Nemo, Jungle Book, Lion King, etc. which all get frequent requests for replays.
| 0
|
train_15072
|
this movie delivers. the best is when the awkward teenage neighbor tries to bike away from the babysitter and in the background looks like he's never been anywhere near a bike in his life as he attempts not to fall off.but this movie doesn't stop there, when less than 5 minutes later it delivers a scene of nothing but an arm reaching through a fence and into a cooler pulling out a beer. stereotypical grilling dads, several plot lines that go nowhere, and a former seaQuest actress with a bluetooth cell phone all add up to making this the perfect Saturday night at home.
| 0
|
train_11012
|
I wasn't sure at first if I was watching a documentary, propaganda film or dramatic presentation. I guess given the time of production it was a mix of all three.Admittedly the dramatic plot was somewhat predictable. But you had a sense that there would be some interesting scenes as the movie went on. We were able to witness what appeared to be realistic training regimens and equipment.Where this movie came together for me was closer to the end. The scenes had a realism (at least as I perceived it) that I haven't encountered often before. You could place yourself in the action and imagine the thoughts of the young combatants. This was mixed in with the usual problems of portraying passable Japanese soldiers at a time when you might think real Japanese actors would be somewhat scarce.The movie is excellent as a source of the state of the American mindset in 1943 as the war waged with Japan. Also of interest was a dig at the Japanese with respect to the help the USA gave Japan in past years.
| 1
|
train_7734
|
I saw this film a few years ago and I got to say that I really love it.Jason Patric was perfect for this weird role that he played.The director?I don't too many things about him...and I don't care.The screenplay is good,that's for sure.In just a few words I have to say about this movie that is weird,strange,even dark,but it's a good one.I saw it a few years ago and never saw it since then.I want to see it again and again.I know that I'm not gonna get sick of watching it.The scenes,the atmosphere,the actors,the story...everything is good.The movie should have lasted longer.I think 120 minutes should have been perfect.I was hoping for a part 2 for this movie.Too bad it din't happened.Jason Patric:you're the man ! very good movie. the end. :-)
| 1
|
train_10241
|
I do try not to take IMDb ratings to heart, but I was flabbergasted when I saw the 5.4 rating to one of my childhood favourites. It doesn't wow me as much at 17, but as a family film this is a sweet and well meaning movie. Kids will definitely love it and won't mind the flaws, and the adults can guess the actor behind each character and admire the subliminal messaging of the film. None of the film was preachy in any way, in fact it has a great message that added to its sweetness. I will admit though that the story is on the thin side, and some scenes like Screweyes's death(which still freaks me out) may be a tad on the scary side. But the animation is well above average with nice colours and good character animation. The music by James Horner is very beautiful, and the song featured is memorable, catchy and amusing. I really liked the characters, Louie is probably the most in-depth of them all, but the dinosaurs were at least engaging. Martin Short's clown was both hilarious and emphatic, the part when he tells Screweyes "I quit!" had me in stitches. My favourite is Screweyes though, an effective villain who is crafty and I suppose intelligent. If anything though, I wish the film kept in the part when he explains how he lost his eye and why he is scared of crows because that way he could've been more developed in terms of depth. The script, while not Oscar-worthy, has its funny and heart-warming parts, and should keep kids and adults entertained. The voice acting for me was what made the movie. John Goodman, Martin Short, Rhea Perlman, Felicity Kendall and Yeardley Smith all gave solid performances, but special mention has to go to Kenneth Mars for he was absolutely superb as Screweyes and almost unrecognisable. All in all, this is a good movie. I don't get the rating, honestly I don't. Sure this film isn't perfect, and it is not as good as a dinosaur movie such as Land Before Time, but it is good fun. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox
| 1
|
train_5725
|
This is what I wrote to some friends earlier:HOLY CRAP, The Grudge is, honest to God, one of the scariest films I've ever seen! I am either getting very soft in my old age, or Sam Raimi and Ghost Pictures did a KICK A** job! (Can't wait for Boogeyman!)I was very scared sitting in the dark theater and wished I had someone, anyone, sitting next to me (except the protagonist in Grudge. I saw the movie by myself.) I swear, there were many many jump scenes that were NOT expected! I felt foolish but my nerves did not care! I was on edge the entire movie, from the opening credits, and the music was fantastically scary. I keep thinking of that sound, though, and I DO NOT LIKE IT!I actually gasped aloud a few times, and cried, "oh" at one scene!! Oh, yeah, I even half-covered my eyes a few times! Word to the wise, though: I thought some of the scenes were a little psychotic. My DH hated Event Horizon and thought whoever wrote it was sick and psycho, but I don't remember the movie so can't compare.I can't say I "enjoyed" this movie b/c I was terrified, but it was very very good and scary. The ending scene, too...whoa! For being a 32-year-old-mommy, I think I may have nightmares from this movie, especially because of that sound. Please get out of my head ;)In summary, this is not a slasher flick like I grew up with (Jason, Freddy). This is a most-of-the-time spooky movie. Perfect for Halloween.Two great trailers for this movie were Boogeyman and The Ring 2!!
| 1
|
train_6651
|
Gandhi, the Great :Greatness in the world is associated with people like Alexanader the great, Ashoka the Great for their greatness lied in being glorified as more than humans. Gandhi is called great for actually not being a Great but being more human, for I always believe bringing out the humanity in us is where the greatness of being human lies.Gandhi was a human with humanity and one who strived for humanity ready to sacrifice himself in the battle for humanity but not his enemies. Let me move to the movie review now.About Gandhi My Father :Gandhi My father is a film not about Gandhi but about his son Harilal Gandhi.On telling the story of a son whose father was one of the greatest humans to walk this earth, the director succeeds in portraying the tale.The film succeeds in telling the story of a mislead son of a father who lead a nation to greatness.The movie is termed as a criticism of Gandhi's failure as a father to his son, I would rather say it is of a sacrifice Gandhi had made as a father of a son to do justice as a father of a nation.I wish the essence of this movie prevails not just in India, the Gandhian land, but through the hearts of all the people of this world.Gandhi the true Human. Jaihind.
| 1
|
train_16484
|
I saw this movie a few years back on the BBC i sat thru it. How? i don't know,this is way up there in the "so bad it'Good " charts Kidman ,Baldwin,and Pullman must cringe when they see it now.I think Woody Allen would have worked wonders with the outlandish plot, and Baldwin's part could have been played with gusto by Leslie Nelson.it was on again tonight i tried to watch it again but life's too short. the few minutes i watched was for the lovely Nicole she was so hot around 93, has Baldwin ever made a good movie? Pullman played his stock in trade "nice but dim" character the F-word coming out of his mouth when the lady from "frasier" miscast ed as a detective accuses him of murder sounds so wrong. stay well away.
| 0
|
train_8558
|
Always enjoy the great acting of Drew Barrymore and her great performance in this film, where she plays a very very complicated young gal,(Holly Gooding),"Skipped Parts",2000, who leaves New York and travels to California and shares an apartment with a up and coming writer, George Newbern,(Patrick Highsmith),"Far Harbor",'96. Many strange things start to happen to Holly and she seeks to find her brother in a mental institution after he killed her father. If you look close enough you will actually see the mother of Drew Barrymore in real life appear as her mother in this picture. If it was not for the good acting of Drew Barrymore and George Newbern, this film should be seen only on Halloween Night! However, it sure has it's surprises in the END!!!!
| 1
|
train_14754
|
OK, people, honestly... this gotta be one of the worst movies about show biz that's ever been made, but I've been laughing myself silly (which may be why I enjoyed it). Basically, it's all about sex, sex and a way to get your own personal 15 minutes of fame. Did I mention that sex was a major issue in this movie? If you have a thing going for bizzzzare characters and easy entertainment, watch this movie when you get the chance (and don't have something better to do). ***Attention spoilers!!!*** The funniest thing on the movie was the guy who asked Jerry whether he could marry his goat (!) on the show and flashing his wallet with his love's pictures. A triple A for bad taste and fun!
| 0
|
train_23880
|
When I first watched Robotboy, I found it fresh and interesting, but then I noticed, that with each episode this show is trying to teach you how to behave yourself, what is good/bad. Episodes became predictable. And main characters are not interesting. Again we see a hyper-smart boy, beaten by his older brother, parents who don't understand their kid, and his friends: girl and fat boy. Also this show has no logic. A super-modern robot who works on two AA-size batteries, and can use a lot of weapons. But the biggest problem is the difference between activated and super-activated modes. We see two different robots, and it declines main idea of the show: "Robot must learn how to behave himself in human society"
| 0
|
train_13339
|
The only redeeming part of this movie was the price I paid. At least all I lost was $3.00 and the time elapsed sitting through this bomb. The crew member who was in charge of continuity missed the boat. When the female lead and the FBI guy went to the alleged killers location, Mr. FBI handed the female a revolver. When the alleged killer came out the door, the revolver has magically transformed into an automatic. One is left to ponder would an FBP agent hand a weapon to a civilian? I think not. Ms. Xavier appears to be a very attractive female. It is too bad the R rating did not allow much of her to be seen. It would seem that a film editor cut what might have been the best parts of the film out.
| 0
|
train_7914
|
I probably saw this movie first in about 1995. Since then I've returned to it many times. It's great! I especially like the first and second clips, "Creation" and "Civilization Rising." Wow! This was so cool back in the glory days of CG animation. CG is way older than I am, as I know the film "Tron" was made 7 years before my time. But this film was a landmark in the early '90s. It was probably the first collaboration of different CG experiments set to music. I like it so much, I think I'll go watch it now. Bye
| 1
|
train_15533
|
I am a VERY big fan of Jenna Jameson, but this movie is horrible. At the time Jenna Jameson was married to Brad Armstrong and he was the director of this film and Jenna was the hottest porn star ever. So, of course, Brad tried to make as much money as he could off her by making this big budget porn film. Now I know why they don't make big budget porn movies anymore. In a fantasy world, porn stars could act, but this is the real world and they can't act. That's why there porn stars, if a women as beautiful as Jenna could act, then she would have tried to go into mainstream movies instead of porn. Just because your beautiful doesn't make you a movie star. A fine example of this is Traci Lords, when she was a teen thru her 20's she was one of the most beautiful, sexy women on earth. She made her move into low budget mainstream films and couldn't act. Where is she now? I gave it a 2 instead of a 1 rating just because Jenna is so hot, but there are better movies she has made then "Dream Quest". Come on Jenna, we don't want to hear you talk, as much as we want to see you have sex. Also, you Jenna, would have a lot more fans and more money in your bank account if you would have done anal on film.
| 0
|
train_5103
|
Another entertaining Travolta dance flick! GREAT MUSIC, mood, and scenes. Debra Winger is beautiful! Like "Saturday Night Fever", this macho film features extremely improbable scenes of beautiful women falling for Travolta and almost begging him to have sex with them.
| 1
|
train_3328
|
It's rare, nowadays, to find a romantic comedy that isn't incredibly disgusting in short doses throughout the entire movie (eg. Big Fat Greek wedding; Me, Myself & Irene). There were only a couple of unnecessarily demented jokes in this movie, nothing unpalatably profane. All around, it was a cute movie with likable characters. I thought the ending was a little abrupt. It feels like they should have ended it at the world series for a real bang up finish. The acting left a little to be desired, but was made up for by the pace of the story. If I'd known it was a Farrelly brothers movie I would have assumed it to be a stomach turning piece of garbage and not watched it, but it seems that even they are capable of accidentally making an okay movie. Good for them, I hope they pull their heads out the rest of the way and start consistently making good films.
| 1
|
train_4499
|
This gripping tale of intergenerational love, jealousy and revenge was even more enjoyable to see on DVD years after its PBS broadcast, with a sharper picture and crisper sound. My only reservations are that the plot has a few improbable moments and that some of the stronger Manchester accents are difficult at times. Luckily even missing a word here and there won't spoil the fun: the primary actors are ideally cast. Robson Green brings an enigmatic smile, a go-for-broke temperament and an athletic physicality to his role as a young surgeon who falls hopelessly for the wife of his boss at the hospital where he's just begun to work. Francesca Annis is one of the most striking 50-ish women imaginable; her acting rivals her beauty. (The love scenes between these two demonstrate better than words how little the age difference matters to them!) Each of the supporting characters is sharply drawn and excellently portrayed as well. The mix of pithy dialog and passionate excess makes this a delightful miniseries. As Russell Baker notes in his introduction, you may not be morally improved by viewing "Reckless" -- but you'll have plenty of fun. (The sequel, a part of the DVD box set, provides a wild yet satisfying two-hour denouement. You won't want to miss it if you've enjoyed what came before.)
| 1
|
train_86
|
I remember seeing this in a the Salem movie theater (where I used to attend "Kiddie Matinée"s almost every Saturday) in Dayton, Ohio when I was a young boy and have never forgotten it. It simply amazed me and my friends. I do wish there were some way I could see it again! I have tried to find some compilation of shorts or something like that to no avail. I only recently discovered that it was a Cousteau film and that blew my mind even more. How the heck he accomplished this is beyond my understanding. The fish is ACTUALLY IN THE CAT'S MOUTH at one point, if I remember correctly! If anyone could help me find a way to see it again I would be extremely grateful!
| 1
|
train_13205
|
There's so little here of the fantastic Anne Rice book that what IS here makes no sense. Some of the characters--intense and surprising characters--don't make it to the screen at all, and those who do are watered down to the point that there's no reason for their existence.Where's the relationship between Christophe and Marcel? Where's the continued affair between Marcel and Juliet? Why does Dolly Rose appear at all, since her story's never explained? Where's the rape and redemption of Marie, whose greatest attribute (and downfall) is that she can pass for white--and her marriage to Richard? Why does the film end with Marcel's beating at the hands of his father? We learn nothing of Aglae beyond that she's a bitch who hates her husband; why no backstory explaining this hatred? As for the performances, there's not a one that's better than mediocre, though that's likely due to the lousy script. Best of the lot is that of the actor playing Richard--but Richard's not on screen enough to salvage the film. Worst is Jasmine Guy as Dolly Rose, though again, it comes down to the actress having nothing to do with what little she's given to work with.All in all, this is just terrible. I thought it'd be impossible for any Anne Rice book-turned film to be worse than EXIT TO EDEN, but FEAST OF ALL SAINTS makes that mess look like a critical hit. How is it that Rice is such a slut she'll allow her best works to become such junk on the screen?
| 0
|
train_24142
|
The tragedy is that this piece of rubbish was part of my curriculum while I was studying cinema. So imagine how I was forced to watch it in complete. Believe me going through hell is much much easier. Our professor told us that this is some film ???, but he never thought that we'd disagree or assume the apposite. I don't think that there is any gods on earth, we're only humans, so all the filmmakers, therefore they CAN make mistakes, bad movies.. Or very bad too. The main problem wasn't that art, by all means, is susceptible to endless points of view, but that a lot of people just don't get it, that every single human got his own genuine taste, his own opinion, hence what I suppose it the greatest movie ever made, can also be your worst one ever, and how that is right both ways, but how many people can understand this correctly?. So my professor believes in this movie, and simply I don't. However, the only way to evaluate this "thing" is by measuring it by its original intent to show us different kinds of old folk stories or whatever to catch on this society's mentality, imagination, and nature. To tell you the damn truth Mr. Pier Paolo Pasolini as the scriptwriter and the director made it too unbearable to watch in the first place. The movie is so UGLY. I can't stand this, so how about analyzing it, then discovering the potential beauty in it !! It's beyond your mind hideousness, and strangely not for the sake of the movie's case or anything, it's for the sake of the unstable vision of (Pasolini). His work is so primitive to underdeveloped extent. The deadly cinematic technique, the effective sense of silliness, and the incredible horribleness made everything obnoxious. Look at the atrocious acting, the unfruitful cinematography, the awfully poor sets, .. OH MY GOD I've got the nausea already. It can terminate your objectivity violently as watching this movie is one true pain like taking the wisdom tooth off by a blind doctor. There are dreadful nightmares which could be more merciful than this. So originally, how to continue THAT just to review it fairly ? Actually, you don't. As this very movie doesn't treat you fair at all. There is really memorable scene in here where some boys are peeing into the eye of the camera (!) I'm trying to connect some things like that with Pasolini's end as murdered.
| 0
|
train_12141
|
Of the three remakes on W. Somerset Maughan's novel, this one is the best one, and not particularly because what John Cromwell brought to the film. The film is worth a look because of the break through performance by Bette Davis, who as Mildred Rogers, showed the film industry she was a star. Finally, her struggles with Jack Warner and his studio paid off royally.The film is dominated by Mildred from the start. We realize from the beginning that Mildred doesn't care for Philip and never will. She doesn't hide her contempt for this kind soul that has fallen in love with the wrong woman. He will be humiliated by Mildred again, and again, as she makes no bones about what she really is.Poor Philip Carey, besides of being handicap, is a man who is weak. When he tries to cling onto Mildred, she rejects him. It is when Mildred returns to him, when she is frail and defeated, that he rises to the occasion, overcoming his own dependency on this terrible woman who has stolen his will and his manhood.Bette Davis gives a fantastic portrayal of Mildred. This was one of her best roles and she ran away with it. Her disgust toward the kind Philip is clear from the onset of their relationship. When she tells him she washes her mouth after he kisses her is one of the most powerful moment in the movie. Leslie Howard underplayed Philip and makes him appear even weaker than he is. Frances Dee, Reginald Denny, Alan Hale and Reginald Owen, are seen in minor roles.This is Bette Davis show, and don't you forget it!
| 1
|
train_5436
|
For years I thought this knockabout service comedy was a product of John Ford, especially with Victor McLaglen as one of the leads. It certainly has the same rough house humor that Ford laces his films with. To my surprise I learned it was George Stevens who actually directed it. Still I refuse to believe that this film wasn't offered to John Ford, but he was probably off in Monument Valley making Stagecoach.Victor McLaglen along with Cary Grant and Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., play three sergeants in the Indian Army who have a nice buddy/buddy/buddy camaraderie going. But the old gang is breaking up because Fairbanks is engaged to marry Joan Fontaine. Not if his two pals can help it, aided and abetted by regimental beastie Gunga Din as played by Sam Jaffe.The Rudyard Kipling poem served as the inspiration for this RKO film about barracks life in the British Raj. The comic playing of the leads is so good that it does overshadow the incredibly racist message of the film. Not that the makers were racist, but this was the assumption of the British there at the time, including our leads and Gunga Din shows this most effectively.The British took India by increments, making deals here and there with local rulers under a weak Mogul emperor who was done away with in the middle of the 19th century. They ruled very little of India outright, that would have been impossible. Their rule depended on the native troops you see here. Note that the soldiers cannot rise above the rank of corporal and Gunga Din is considerably lower in status than that.Note here that the rebels in fact are Hindu, not Moslem. There are as many strains of that religion as there are Christian sects and this strangling cult was quite real. Of course to those being strangled they might not have the same view of them as liberators. But until India organized its independence movement, until the Congress Party came into being, these people were the voice of a free India.But however you slice it, strangling people isn't a nice thing to do and the British had their point here also. When I watch Gunga Din, I think of Star Trek and the reason the prime directive came into being.Cary Grant got to play his real cockney self here instead of the urbane Cary we're used to seeing. Fairbanks and McLaglen do very well with roles completely suited to their personalities.Best acting role in the film however is Eduard Ciannelli as the guru, the head of the strangler cult. Note the fire and passion in his performance, he blows everyone else off the screen when he's on.Favorite scene in Gunga Din is Ciannelli exhorting his troops in their mountain temple. Note how Stevens progressively darkens the background around Ciannelli until all you see are eyes and teeth like a ghoulish Halloween mask. Haunting, frightening and very effective.It was right after the action of this film in the late nineteenth century that more and more of the British public started to question the underlying assumptions justifying the Raj. But that's the subject of Gandhi.Gunga Din is still a great film, entertaining and funny. It should be shown with A Passage to India and Gandhi and you can chart how the Indian independence movement evolved.
| 1
|
train_17449
|
OK OK, it might be hard to put the entirety of a man's life in one film. Traditionally therefore, biopics focus on one or two significant parts in the subject's life. Now, Byron was a "my week beats your year" fellow, which makes selecting parts that are representative even harder. Furthermore, just as Byron's poetry is inseparable from his life, the man's life itself must be seen as a whole. Lifting parts out is not only not showing the whole picture, it's showing a different picture altogether.Now, in short my review comes down to this: supposedly, Byron was indeed the "my week beats your year" prototype, a guy who lived so intensely that he indeed did more in his 15 or so active years than most do in an entire lifetime. True, he had setbacks and was a victim of the time and social setting he lived in - but in the end, this dude is supposed to be the prototype whose life we'd all want to lead, no? Well, I did NOT, at ANY moment, want to live the life depicted in this film. So it gets 3. Not for being so badly done (which, direction-wise, it more or less was), but more importantly for missing the point entirely in a flat plot.Some more detail. Well, to over simplify things, a Byron bio should have two distinct episodes: 1. Post-first Europe trip: England and his rise to fame + marriage / 2. His life abroad. Now, the important thing is that the SECOND part should be at least as important as the first. Not only was it a lot longer, but the most significant change in Byron took place then. Furthermore, it's where he created his best works (Don Juan, the Vision of Judgement etc. - all the stuff that makes him *really* unique in English literature).Instead, in this film (a) Byron's life never comes across as even remotely entertaining, (b) it only gets *worse* after he leaves England. They did two good jobs: first, they started at his return of his Europe trip (though a bit more of the actual trip would have been welcome as a prologue), second, they chose an angle, and they chose his incestuous love for Augusta (who is rather perfectly cast). The problem with this last thing is that they never let it go. True, Byron remained strongly attached to Augusta for the rest of his life, but, especially as he was such a mood swing person, the fact that his letters reflect that does not mean that at other times he might not have completely enjoyed life.Anyway, the first part of the TV film should have ended with him leaving England. There's no doubt about that. The thing is: once abroad, a life of debauchery began (with the infamous Geneva period), but in Italy Byron also discovered a new life, both for his poetry (inspired by Italian comedy), already in Venice, and for himself when he found the Contessa Teresa Guiccioli and moved to Ravenna (afterwards, at the request of Shelly, with Teresa, to Pisa). In other words, he was also *liberated*. His mind and life opened up (and not only in the decadent sense), while England's closed further as it fell into the gravitational pull of the Victorian age. True, freedom was Augusta-less, but this bitter-sweet freedom tastes sour in this film. We see a lonely, bored snob getting older.I mean, hell, Byron never thought much about his poetry, except when he finally found his own voice in Don Juan! Apart from poetic and romantic developments, his relationship with Shelly (and the down-break) should have been more documented. Also, it is in Italy in Ravenna that he gets involved with politics and revolutionary ideas. This is important, as it shows that the decadent romantic and ultimately escapist language and person of Childe Harold is changing into the more planted-in-life realistic and lighter passion of the language and person of Don Juan. Life and work are one. True, still a bit naive, but it's what got him to Greece! And the whole thing came full circle in Pisa, where Shelley's revolutionary spirit further ignited the spark. Missolonghi wasn't the bored snob suddenly looking for some action. It was the insights in Italy (the Gambas) stirring him into action. It can be a symbol for the man looking for some ancient-style battle excitement while the rest of Europe becomes fixed in the clay of modern reason and conservatism. But it wasn't just that, there was a true inspiration behind it. Meanwhile, Byron wrote massive amounts of Don Juan. True, his end is a bit sad, but it's not like he's worn out. THAT is the essence of Byron's life: he may have had some strong emotional attachments (2: Augusta and Teresa), but EVERY time he managed to reinvent himself truly. Meaning that he wasn't 'less' at the end of his life - no, he'd made a physical and mental JOURNEY that, at the time, few people were prepared to make.I wonder. Why is it that so often the second period in Byron's life is overlooked? Because it had less obvious conflicts, as the man was finally coming to his own? In focusing our attention on the frustrated England years fraught with scandals, we show ourselves to be not much better than the English aristocracy at the time, which Byron so despised, and which, despite the fact that he had no choice, he *willingly* fled in 1816, to find a world that was modern and liberal enough to let him find the voice that would make him the first romantic plainspoken language poet and evolve from a self-obsessed snob to a passionate man moving onward with a cause.
| 0
|
train_2494
|
This first two seasons of this comedy series were very strange and they weren't very funny and had a drama element where Bill (the mother) was struggling with all the usual problems in life but that element was a bit depressing and didn't mix well with th comedy elements which is probably why it was dropped. After that it soon became one of the funniest comedy series the BBC have ever made! The chemistry between Bill and Ben's character's were very funny and there was always so many brilliant and memorable sketches in each series. The Christmas specials were hilarious and a real treat for Christmas. The show came to a stop when the main actor Gary Olsen playing Bill passed away which was very sad because he was a brilliant actor in films such as Up 'n' Under and a very funny man RIPThis underrated show has sadly disappeared from our television screens and doesn't to be repeated that often - Though it does appear on UKTV Gold once in a while but it should be repeated on BBC one or two to show this brilliant Comedy to a new audience
| 1
|
train_1544
|
This is an excellent but hard to find trippy World War I spy thriller in the inimitable 60's Italian style. From the psychedelic graphics of the introductory credits and the great score by Ennio Morricone to the lesbian love scene with Capucine and the elaborately produced apocalyptic no man's land battle scenes with poison gas and German cavalry in full gas proof 'storm trooper' gear, this is a movie that should not be missed. It is a film that captures the horrors and cruelty of war and the ruthlessness of the players on and off the battlefield. Apart from the battle scenes, some of the production and special effects are primitive, apparently because the bulk of the budget for this movie was saved for the battle scenes, but for lovers of 60's cinema it should not be an issue. I first saw this movie on television many years ago and had the foresight to tape it on VHS. I still have the tape and enjoy watching it again from time to time.
| 1
|
train_13500
|
The plot for Descent, if it actually can be called a plot, has two noteworthy events. One near the beginning - one at the end. Together these events make up maybe 5% of the total movie time. Everything (and I mean _everything_) in between is basically the director's desperate effort to fill in the minutes. I like disturbing movies, I like dark movies and I don't get troubled by gritty scenes - but if you expect me to sit through 60 minutes of hazy/dark (literally) scenes with NO storyline you have another thing coming. Rosario Dawson, one of my favorite actresses is completely wasted here. And no, she doesn't get naked, not even in the NC-17 version, which I saw.If you have a couple of hours to throw away and want to watch "Descent", take a nap instead - you'll probably have more interesting dreams.
| 0
|
train_16321
|
What is the most harrowing movie ever made? The gynaecological nightmare of 'Cries and Whispers'? The acid psychodramas of Fassbinder? The discomfiting black comedy of 'Last House on the left? I'm sure for that portion of the film-loving public that tie their masts to the good ship Buster Keaton, there is only one answer - any one of his sound films. I don't know what flayed my soul more poignantly in this movie - the grounding of Keaton's intricate and expansive physical art to humdrum slapstick; the painful hesitation of this master filmmaker with dialogue - not that he hasn't a lovely, comic voice, or that he can't make dialogue funny; it's just that the studio don't seem to have given him enough takes, and so he seems to be trying to remember his lines before he delivers, which only makes him - Keaton, not his character, look silly; or is it the humiliation of seeing Keaton caught up in a tawdry sex farce, when he has given us some of the richest accounts of romantic frustration in film? No, I know what was most disturbing - having to watch Buster Keaton, cinema's greatest comedian, sit aside to observe Jimmy Durante doing his schtick. It is horrors such as this that get yer Dantes composing yer Infernos.MGM seem to have got the curious idea that the best way to adapt Keaton to sound was to turn him into a Marx Brother, complete with verbal pedantry, elaborate, tedious 'clowning', shambolic slapstick, theatrical setting, triumph through chaos, and Thelma Todd. Keaton was just not that sort of comic, and where Groucho's malicious tongue and gleeful opportunism might just have made this plot work, Buster's socially inept professor can't, he is too studied and predictable. What Buster needed was to be allowed experiment like Lang in 'M', or Rene Clair; he would never have tried to hold back the tide like Chaplin. When a film like 'The General' is alluded to - messing about with trains - the loss becomes even more apparent. And the thing is, in patches amid the flat direction, the film isn't all that bad - there is an excellent jolt when a camera on the bus leaves Keaton alone at a railway station; and the denouement, if hardly original, is at least livelier than what went before. There is something almost endearing about the way Keaton slows down a plot that needs all the zip it can get. There is a film in here about loneliness, emotionally paralysing order, the numbing effects of education etc., struggling to get out. The best way to appreciate this film is to watch not the narrative of Professor TZ Post, but of emasculated genius Buster Keaton, trapped in a prison of mediocrity, confounded by new technology, mocked by a malevolent fate (in this case the studio), retaining a stoical grace. Looked at like that, it becomes a kind of masterpiece.
| 0
|
train_12951
|
I don't care how many nominations this junk got for best this and that, this movie stunk. I didn't know whether to turn off the set, or file a lawsuit with O.J.'s attorney for wrongful damage to my mental health. I have seldom been this bored; to call this dung entertainment is a slap in the face of every movie-goer across the planet. The whole story was stupid, the acting was uninspired, the 'drama' was emotionless. I am thankful I didn't have to pay for this unfulfilling experience.
| 0
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.