id
stringlengths 7
11
| text
stringlengths 52
10.2k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|---|
train_4631
|
Movies like this one, and C.R.A.Z.Y., make me very sad for American films with a gay subject matter. With the exception of Parting Glances and Brokeback Mountain, there are few other notable American films with the kind of depth and sincerity as this movie, The Bubble. This movie centers on two men, Noam and Ashwar, an Israle and Palestinian respectively. Their relationship is complicated by the tension between the Jews and Arabs in Israel. Couples, in the early stages of their relationships will struggle with who will call who next, or who will say "I love you" first. Noam and Ashwar's early love is complicated by suicide bombings, armed security check points, and racism. While Noam's friends accept and like Ashwar, who is Arab, it is clear that most of Tel Aviv's citizens probably don't.One of the most touching moments, and there are many in this film, is when Noam and Ashwar attend a production of "Bent". We, as movie goers, see them watching this play, and the affect it has on the two of them is profoundly captured in their eyes. And ultimately, this touching moment is played out in a very sad way in the finale of the movie.Ohad Knoller and Youseff 'Joe' Sweid are outstanding as Noam and Ashwar. Director Eytan Fox is brilliant in creating a cogent and interesting retelling of the Shakespeare classic Romeo and Juliet. And while most movies today have sex in them, (almost as a sport), this one goes back to the old tried and true version of sex with love and passion combined. It is so refreshing. Also refreshing is seeing two gay men being portrayed as people and not cartoons. There are cartoonish characters in this movie. It just doesn't happen to be the two gay guys for a change. Somewhere on this site I think I read a comparison between this movie and "Friends". Well, not really. Yes, these are youthful characters stumbling through their first uneasy steps into adulthood and relationships. But I don't recall getting "blowed up" as a backdrop to the insipid story lines in "Friends".This is a very good movie. It has heart, and heartbreak. And like all good love stories love does win out. But not in it's intact glory of full bloom . Still, it's a very satisfying movie to watch.
| 1
|
train_22006
|
Ah yes, the VS series, MVC2 being the pinnacle. It's been said before, this is what you get when half of the crew fell asleep on the job, unfortunately the gameplay half did. Don't get me wrong, this is fun, but you get tired of mashing buttons. As for the plot summary, AHAHAHAHAHAAAAA... There is no plot. Beat that guy at the end and win! Eh, who plays this by their self anyway?
| 0
|
train_24817
|
I am sorry to fans of this film but it is the worst thing i have ever seen. Slow,badly cast and badly acted it is a film trying to escape the deadbeat romcoms of the recent years and failing! McDonald and Parker seem unable to convey real emotion and are lifeless. They seem to be in this one for any pay checks they are getting for it and not because they thought it was a good idea. The plot is DULL!! i love great chick films as much as the next girl and this is not one!! If you avoid one film this year....let it be
| 0
|
train_7569
|
At a time in our culture where reality exposed as narrative is overpowering fiction as we know it on the small and big screen, "Apart From That" is a film that exposes real life moments that feel more honest, fresh and innovative in there presentation than I have ever seen before. The usual spoon feeding conventions are non existent in this film, leaving a content audience to sit and watch these real life moments trickle one after the other on the screen. While watching the movie, and even upon post contemplation, it is hard to believe that these amazing performances where actually that, performances. Every moment with the large cast of actors felt like the truth being exposed in their daily usual lives. Even so, "Apart From That" does not feel like a documentary or reality television, but instead transcends into a category of its own, with its unique cinematography and direction. I look forward to watching this new category of storytelling continue with other films by directors Jennifer Shainin and Randy Walker.This movie must be seen.
| 1
|
train_3179
|
Who made this film? I love this film? Somebody has a wacky sense of humor...This Zany, Surreal style of film making is appealing, but it is hard to create - or easy to forget - that substance, and characters who actually have souls, are what give such a film depth. Without that a comedy is just a bunch of ideas. Who cares. It may get laughs, but it goes through you like a half-good hamburger...next...Crosseyed may not intend to change anybody's life, but I appreciate the depth and substance. They sneak up on you. I started this film thinking "Oh, I get it - indie comedy - off the wall - gonzo...yup." And it is that - but if you pay attention there is sub text and character moments filling it out. In this sense the film breathes. It makes propositions that give pause - if you're available to see them - and then, of course, it goes on its insanely merry way.You will miss the point if you don't sign the contract to suspend belief at moments in the film. Stepping between reality and surreality IS one of the points of this movie.Crosseyed isn't perfect, but smart people made it. I want more.The dining room scenes are an absolute HOOT.Put on your seat belt.
| 1
|
train_24174
|
I am a Motion Picture Production major at Wright State University in Ohio, and yesterday I was sadly given the opportunity to watch this god-awful film in class. We were informed by our professor that it would be very funny to us, but the reason we were watching it was because it was one of the first sound films - a complete disaster.The problem with early sound films was that Hollywood actors only knew how to do silent movies and they weren't good at memorizing lines. So producers and directors would look to the stage to get actors. Sounds like a great idea, right? Well, the kind of acting one does on stage doesn't show up too well on film. Most of the actors in "Atlantic" look and sound like they're acting in a play, which results in lots of hearty laughs at the over-acting. Another limitation of early sound film was the technology of microphones. You couldn't move the mikes like you can today, you had to keep them static or it would pick up the sound of air moving through. There was usually one mike used in any given scene in this movie. In one particular scene, there is a man sitting at a table. Someone walks right up to him and delivers their line, then walks away. Another actor comes up from behind him, delivers their line, then walks away. It goes on like this for a couple more people. The microphone is obviously right by the man at the table, making for a laughable actor carousel.Those are only technical problems. If you get into the story and direction, then it gets even worse. The story is a fictionalized account of what happened on the Titanic. The characters are unbelievable and pointless. A "story" about a man cheating on his wife and their teenage daughter has no place in the movie. It is barely resolved and leaves you wondering why it was there in the first place. A lousy attempt at high drama, the actors take long, pregnant pauses between lines many times. It is tiresome, and you can't wait for this 90 minute (feels like 180 at least) movie to get over with. I'm not going to talk a whole lot about the issue of racism at this time in our country, but it really offended me that there were only two blacks in the whole movie, and they were portrayed as animals. They both pushed past the women and children to try and get in one of the lifeboats. They were ordered to stop or be shot, and of course they didn't so they were shot. I was appalled.I give this movie a 2/10. I would have given it a 1/10 (the lowest rating possible), but I gave it an extra point just because it was one of the first sound films, and I tried to put it into context. If you want to see a good early sound film, check out Alfred Hitchcock's "Blackmail" that also came out in the year 1929. You will find that the best directors were able to adapt to new technology immediately.
| 0
|
train_19144
|
Yes, he is! ...No, not because of Pintilie likes to undress his actors and show publicly their privies. Pintilie IS THE naked "emperor" - so to speak...It's big time for someone to state the truth. This impostor is a voyeur, a brat locked in an old man's body. His abundance of nude scenes have no artistic legitimacy whatsoever. It is 100% visual perversion: he gets his kicks by making the actors strip in the buff and look at their willies. And if he does this in front of the audience, he might eve get a hard-on! Did you know that, on the set of "Niki Ardelean", he used to embarrass poor Coca Bloss, by telling her: "Oh, Coca, how I wanna f*** you!"? She is a great lady, very decent and sensitive, and she became unspeakably ashamed - to his petty satisfaction! And, as a worrying alarm signal about the degree of vulgarity and lack of education in Romanian audiences, so many people are still so foolish to declare these visual obscenities "works of art"! Will anyone have ever the decency to expose the truth of it all?
| 0
|
train_21491
|
I bought this DVD after seeing it highly ranked here. It's just a short 20 minutes zombie film. Nothing special about it except for the music perhaps.Don't buy it! Not even really worth spending 20 minutes to see it. Only if you're really bored...
| 0
|
train_6949
|
"Addictive" is an adjective I've heard many times when talking of certain TV shows. Most recently, dramas like Lost, Heroes and Prison Break have earned that description. However, as compelling as they may be (and they really are) I can wait a few days before I see the next episode of either series, even Prison Break which some have lazily classified as "the new 24". With all due respect, there can be no such thing, and for a good reason: no other silver-screen thriller is based on a real-time structure. That's what sets 24 apart from any other show, and that's why I practically have to watch an entire season (on DVD) in seven days or less: once the frickin' clock starts ticking, it's impossible to tune out.An episode whose events unfolded over the course of a single day was a trademark of NYPD Blue (and, more recently, Deadwood); having an entire season of a new series last 24 hours, one per ep (the actual running time is 41 minutes; the remaining 19 are occupied by commercials when the show airs on telly), was the most groundbreaking idea in mainstream television since Hill Street Blues introduced non-linear storytelling (a mandatory element nowadays). And it truly paid off.Ironically enough, the original plan for the series was to make it revolve around a wedding (fortunately, creators Joel Surnow and Robert Cochran realized the format was more suitable for a conspiracy thriller), which is probably the reason the first glimpse we get of the hero suggests a cheerful atmosphere: looking extremely relaxed, Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland) is enjoying a game of chess with his daughter Kimberly (Elisha Cuthbert) and, minutes later, being tender with Teri (Leslie Hope), the wife with whom he has just reconciled. As in The Sopranos, though, something unexpected and shocking is just behind the corner: not only has Kim snuck out of her room, Jack also receives a phone call urging him to get to work immediately. At midnight? I'm afraid so: Bauer is a CTU (Counter Terrorist Unit) agent, and his boss has acquired reliable intel about a possible hit on the life of David Palmer (Dennis Haysbert), an African-American Presidential candidate who will be in Los Angeles for the whole day (oh, right, I almost forgot: events occur on the day of the California Presidential Primary). No time for napping, then: Jack has to spend the next 24 hours working on the case. Unfortunately, he has a tendency to ignore protocol, and that doesn't sit well with George Mason (Xander Berkeley), a slimy man from Division who has been asked to interfere with the operation.The plot is very dense, making the show hard to recommend for those with a short attention span, but anyone willing to take a look will be rewarded instantly: the writing is sharp and precise, the attention to detail unsurpassed, and the suspense is consistently sky-high, mainly thanks to the real-time trickery which considerably enhances the adrenaline level.Another great quality of this pilot is the characterization: most genre shows (sci-fi and thriller) tend to simply introduce the key players and then define them later on (a textbook example is CSI, where character development is minimal, but then again that matches the show's unique style), whereas the series debut of 24 offers a rich array of fully rounded people, among whom Jack (Sutherland's best role - ever!) and Palmer (the real revelation of the show) stand out for being perfectly described after one episode only (the former divided between job and family, reckless but humane, the latter honorable and endowed with great integrity). A couple of supporting parts border on stereotype (Mason and Tony Almeida especially), but two factors ought to be taken into account: a) this is the first episode; b) there's so much going on most viewers won't even complain about a "flaw" or two. After all, how many network programs manage to begin with a conspiracy, a missing teenager AND a huge explosion - and still have equally satisfying material for the rest of the season?Tick, tock, tick, tock...
| 1
|
train_4078
|
This is one of my all time favorite movies, PERIOD. I can't think of another movie that combines so many nice movie qualities like this one does. This flick has it all: Action, Adventure, Science Fiction, Good vs. Bad and even some Romance (without even an innocent "peck" on the cheek between the Pazu and Sheeta). Maybe best of all, you don't have to be in Mensa to "get it" and enjoy the movie like you do with some of Miyazaki's other movies (I don't know about you, but I watch movies to take a break from thinking). This is just a flat-out enjoyable movie that everyone will like, so do yourself a favor and go buy it. The only sour note is the American Dubbing. I found Vander-Geek to be just plain annoying. But all is not lost, the original Japanese version is on the two-disc set and it rocks! Who cares if you can't understand spoken Japanese? If you can read at a second-grade level then watch the original Japanese recording with English subtitles. You won't regret it.
| 1
|
train_186
|
There are some wonderful things about this movie. Marion Davies could act, given the right property; she is wonderful in comedic roles. William Haines could act, and you can see why he was one of the screen's most popular leading men. (Until a potential scandal forced him from the business).The story is a bit trite, but handled so beautifully that you don't notice. King Vidor's direction is one of the principle reasons for this. The producer? The boy genius, Irving Thalberg.It's about movie making, and you get to see the process as it was done in 1928, the cameras, sets, directors directing and actors emoting. You get to see (briefly) some of the major stars of the day; even Charlie Chaplin does a turn as himself, seeking an autograph. You also catch glimpses of Eleanor Boardman, Elinor Glyn, Claire Windsor, King Vidor, and many others who are otherwise just names and old photographs.Please, even if you're not a fan of the silents, take the time to catch this film when you can. It's really a terrific trip back in time.
| 1
|
train_11601
|
The Contaminated Man is a good film that has a good cast which includes William Hurt, Natascha McElhone, Peter Weller, Katja Woywood, Michael Brandon, Nikolett Barabas, Hendrick Haese, Désirée Nosbusch, Arthur Brauss, and Christopher Cazenove.The acting by all of these actors is very good. Hurt and Weller are really excellent in this film. I thought that they performed good. The thrills is really good and some of it is surprising. The movie is filmed very good. The music is good. The film is quite interesting and the movie really keeps you going until the end. This is a very good and thrilling film. If you like William Hurt, Natascha McElhone, Peter Weller, Katja Woywood, Michael Brandon, Nikolett Barabas, Hendrick Haese, Désirée Nosbusch, Arthur Brauss, Christopher Cazenove, the rest of the cast in the film, Actio, Thrillers, Dramas, and interesting films then I strongly recommend you to see this film today!
| 1
|
train_20249
|
This movie should have NEVER been made. From the poorly done animation, to the beyond bad acting. I am not sure at what point the people behind this movie said "Ok, looks good! Lets do it!" I was in awe of how truly horrid this movie was. At one point, which very may well have been the WORST point, a computer generated Saber Tooth of gold falls from the roof stabbing the idiot creator of the cats in the mouth...uh, ooookkkk. The villain of the movie was a paralyzed sabretooth that was killed within minutes of its first appearance. The other two manages to kill a handful of people prior to being burned and gunned down. Then, there is a random one awaiting victims in the jungle...which scares me for one sole reason. Will there be a Part Two? God, for the sake of humans everywhere I hope not.This movie was pure garbage. From the power point esquire credits to the slide show ending.
| 0
|
train_5824
|
This is without a doubt the funniest of the Curly stooges shorts. I've seen it dozens of times and it always makes me laugh. Hilarious pantomime sequences. A perfect example of "musical comedy". Even people who don't like the knuckleheads remember this one fondly.
| 1
|
train_10461
|
A Vow to Cherish is a wonderful movie. It's based on a novel of the same title, which was equally good, though different from the film. Really made you think about how you'd respond if you were in the shoes of the characters. Recommended for anyone who has ever loved a parent, spouse, or family member--in other words, EVERYONE!Though the production isn't quite Hollywood quality--no big special effects--still, the values and ideals portrayed more than make up for it. And the cast did a wonderful job of capturing the emotional connections between family members, and the devastation that occurs when one of them becomes ill.You don't want to miss this!
| 1
|
train_12998
|
I saw this movie when i was much younger and i thought it was funny. I saw it again last week, and you can guess the result. Some funny parts in it, very few and too long. The beginning is the only thing that is funny if you ask me.If you want a total b-movie this is a good pick, but don't expect too much from aliens dwarf size
| 0
|
train_6932
|
WINCHESTER 73 is the story of a man (Jimmy Stewart) obsessed with getting back his prized possession, a repeating rifle made by Winchester. The rifle keeps changing hands, and Stewart doggedly keeps after it. This 1950 B&W effort by Anthony Mann is more a crime film than a traditional western, and the cowboys often seem more like modern-day gangsters than old-fashioned cowboys. Shelley Winters plays a woman of questionable virtue who is headed for a ranch with a man (Charles Drake) she may marry. She ends up falling for Stewart, but not before she is passed around a bit. Winters is the most complex character in a film filled with unusual characters. Watch for a young Dan Dureyea as a nutty killer and Tony Curtis in a very small role. A woefully miscast Will Geer plays Wyatt Earp.
| 1
|
train_17336
|
Let's start by the simple lines. From the viewer's side, there a couple of good "director details", some points of view at the movie scenes that are nice. The special effects are good enough, a good acting/good scenery also. But the story is way too simple. It shows how a elite Army bomb squad unit lives, acts and sometimes dies. It shows the drama of living in war. In my movie experience as a serious action movie "addicted" guy, I missed that click that gets my eyes and mind stuck on the screen. One of the things that need to be present in a movie in order to I consider it a good one is the ability of immerse the viewer in the movie reality and time. It didn't happened to me. I stayed "conscious", for the entire movie.Honestly speaking, I think that this movie gained its place in fame based on the "subconscious" appeal of American patriotism, a healthy and genuine feeling, but not the adequate use as a movie fame generator. More than a movie about war, it grows its popularity based on that.A simple thought: if this was a world war II or I movie, only changing time, with everything remained the same, would it be this awarded? Sure not. Why? Because there are great ones that elevate the bar way to high.Compared against its rivals in the Oscars, I don't think that all of the prizes it won are correctly awarded.
| 0
|
train_22143
|
Below average movie with poor music considering a movie based on music??? Ordinary Script & Direction with full of blunders. Salman Khan was at his usual acting. Ajay's performance deteriorating with time as his looks,especially his styles as a Rock Star were pathetic. Asin was just a showpiece only. Overall I felt like wasting my money in cinema. Salman Khan remains as immature as 10 years ago compared to Aamir Khan. There were many songs in the movie all boring except "Man Ko Ati". The Most Important Song to impress the UK Music Sponsor was most unimpressive. "Khanabadosh" can be very easily understood by an English Music Sponsor. The other movie I saw last week was "Wake Up Sid" which was simple slow love story with good direction & acting despite average music
| 0
|
train_18985
|
This movie makes me want to throw up every time I see it. If you take the first movie, and reverse the plot (ariel wants to leave the sea, her daughter wants to go to the sea), take the same characters and give them new animals and new names, and then throw in crappy animation and the biggest suck factor, possible, you get the little mermaid 2. Its basically a copy of the first movie with a reversed plot. I'll take you through the horror of it step by step. These are the people from the 1st movie: First of all, Prince Eric is still prince eric, with about 3 lines in the whole movie. Ariel is uptight, annoying, and is not the carefree, headstrong spirit we saw in the 1st. In fact, she is the exact opposite. Sebastian is still sebastian only less cute, less convincing as being stressed out, and the jokes just aren't funny anymore. Flounder has about 2 lines. He now has kids and he talks with a dumb nasal voice. Scuttle is still dumb scuttle only not funny. King Triton's character is probably the best, he still retains the intimidation and love for his daughter, Melody. Ariel and Prince Eric appear not to give a hoot about their daughter. Like i said, all they did was use the characters from the first movie and copy them. This is what they did: Ursula- The new evil villain is Morgana, Ursula's sister who feels like she always lived in Ursula's shadow. I wouldn't be scared of her if she showed up at my doorway with a knife. She can't do anything right and she's a failure as a villain. She has the same voice ursula did. Sebastian & Flounder - Have been replaced by probably the most stupid sidekicks, Tip & Dash, a walrus and a penguin. They try to be hero's but always fail when trying. the plot is so predictable. They become heroes at the end. Yawn. Flatson& Jetsom- Now replaced by a shark who was turned about 10x smaller by triton. Hes really bad too. Morgana and the shark (sharkbait, I think was his name) have no chemistry, good or bad. Ariel-Ah, Ariel. Our lovely mermaid was replaced by her un-lovely daughter, melody. Melody cannot sing, her voice is about 2 octaves higher than it should be, and you want to punch her in the face because shes so fake sugary sweet. She wants to go to the sea, she is clumsy and the kids make fun of her, she has to go find herself. yawn.Not only is the movie boring and unoriginal its so simplistic when you watch this movie you will gasp at how bad it is. Certain parts of the movie make you want to call Disney up and demand why such a horrible movie was made as a sequel to such a wonderful original.Basically, comparing the little mermaid 2 to the little mermaid is like comparing and Ed Wood movie to Casablanca. Don't ever watch this, not even when your bored.
| 0
|
train_17583
|
I find it rather useless to comment on this "movie" for the simplest reason that it has nothing to comment upon.It's similar to a rotten egg which has nothing good to show to the world excerpt for the fact that it is rotten as other endless number of eggs have been before it. But since a comment is mandatory for such a grandiose insignificance ... Filth is definitely the proper word to describe this movie created in the same manner as any other Romanian "movie" directed by Lucian Pintilie who insists to depict the so called "Romanian reality" following the Communist era (1990 to present days).Under no circumstances recommended for people outside Romania as for the others (who lately find amateurish camera, lack of plot, lack of directorial / actors's quality etc, noise etc. as being trendy and even art-like) : watch & enjoy this "movie" (as I know you will) but do the other well intentioned IMDb members a favor, don't write an online review for it will misguide, irritate and in the end waste their time.On the other hand this movie (among others) has some value whatsoever, an educational one for it sets the example for : "How NOT to make a movie."
| 0
|
train_24171
|
Need I say--its a stinker! (I gave it a rating of 2)Only watch it if you suffer from insomnia.There's plenty of scenery chewing and hamming it up, but not much else happens in this movie. There is no suspense, no deep, shocking secrets revealed, no real threat to the heroine's well being. A few disagreements, slight raising of voices--that's pretty much it. The secrets are nothing that couldn't happen to anybody - the last "secret" revealed in the film is totally predictable by that point.The plot, such as it is, revolves around a young woman named Faith (Meg Tilly), who is an artist, who is hired to paint a series of mural panels in a huge ballroom in a vast mansion by a very, very wealthy, older widowed woman, and a growing mother/daughter type relationship that the older woman craves with her.It turns out the older woman's daughter, Cassandra, is dead. You can pretty well fit the rest of the pieces together.Even the scene with the mysterious man menacing our heroine does not advance to the point where you really fear for her safety beyond maybe a second or two. Why he's still hanging around years after Cassandra's death is a good question.There's also the question of the fact that in this vast mansion there is only one servant, a faithful butler who seems to do everything--cooking, cleaning, serving the meal, answering the door, etc. Everything except apparently locking the door--since that would be the only explanation for how one of the characters just walks into a room where Faith is.There's nothing that will have you grasping your chair arms, and leaning forward on the edge of your seat, because there IS no "mounting" tension in this film--just bland, pathetic revelations that get tossed out from time to time.
| 0
|
train_23659
|
I saw this movie at a 'sneak preview' and i must honestly confess that I do not like films with Meryl Streep that much. This picture was the worst. Half the theatre did not return after the break halfway the film. I couldnt blame them, if this wasn't a true story there had been absolutely no need for the second half of the picture. Just before the film goes forward in time about ten years I myself was expecting the credits to appear.
| 0
|
train_4857
|
This movie appears to have designed as a Fred Astaire-Ginger Rogers film--the plot outline, dance numbers, zippy music and the entire formula is there...except for Ginger! Whether it REALLY was originally intended as a re-pairing of the team is uncertain but it sure has the look of one of these films. Instead of the usual sidekicks for Fred (such as Eric Blore or Edward Everett Horton), Burns and Allen are used--probably since despite being known as a comedy team, they COULD sing and dance quite well. This actually shocked me, but the team were a welcome addition and some of the traditional Fred and Ginger numbers were done with either Fred and Gracie or these two along with George. Only once, at the very end, does Ms. Fontaine dance with Fred but it's very brief and with a distant camera shot.And speaking of Burns and Allen, I think I owe it to the team to talk about them in the film. I have never been a fan of their show or their movies. In general, I find Gracie's idiot act very annoying and I have given some poor reviews to their movie shorts and full-length films. However, in this film I must admit that they were great--not only dancing competently but I actually thought they were funny and filled the hole left by Edward Everett Horton very nicely. They were on top of their game and the writers did a wonderful job in this department.Now as for the rest of the film, it's all a lot of fun and is entertaining. The problem for me, though, was that Joan Fontaine was not a particularly good choice for the movie--not just because she was acting outside her range (after all, she wasn't a singer or dancer), but because she had the screen presence of a ball of lint. Because of this, the usual balance and great boy-girl dialog was lacking. There was also a very charming performance by Harry Watson as a devilish little boy who did everything he could do to play cupid--all because he wanted to win a bet! And finally, I loved the Fun House and Tunnel of Love sequence--it is too hard to describe but is so much fun to watch! Overall, I did like the film quite a bit--it had a lot of charm and excellent writing. Unfortunately, it also featured a bland performance by Ms. Fontaine that knocks off a point--bringing my score for this film to 7.
| 1
|
train_15062
|
Let me start out by saying this movie has 1 funny point at the very beginning with the exchange between the narrator and George: Narrator:Huh? Wait a minute! Who the heck are you? George: Me new George. Studio too cheap to pay Brendan Fraser. Narrator: How did you get the part? George: New George just lucky, I guess. Sadly, that's the only funny part in the entire movie.It was still entertaining...But then again, i'm easily entertained...I wouldn't say this is the worst movie i've ever seen (that title goes to the terribly un-funny Disaster Movie...), This movie falls #7 on my bottom 15 list...If your a small child who is easily entertained, you'll enjoy this movie. If you're a movie-watcher who wants a good, funny movie, You'll end up shooting yourself halfway through this one..
| 0
|
train_2315
|
There is so much of worth in this movie that it is hard to know where to begin with praise. Let me begin by expressing my admiration for a perfect portrayal by Reese Witherspoon. That her performance stands out in the excellent cast is praise indeed. Robert Mulligan has seldom disappointed those of us who have admired his work. Every frame of The Man in the Moon is evidence of film making at its best.
| 1
|
train_11902
|
This movies chronicles the life and times of William Castle. He made a series of low budget horror films in the 1950s-1960s that he sold with gimmicks. In "13 Ghosts" you need viewers to see the ghosts (they were in color, the film was in b&w). "The Tingler" had theatre seats equipped with a buzzer that jolted the audience when a monster escapes into a movie theatre. "Marabre" issued a life insurance policy to all members in case they were frightened to death! The movies themselves were pretty bad but the gimmicks had people rushing to see them. In this doc there are interviews with directors inspired by Castle, actors in his movies and his daughter. It also gets into his home life and the kind of man he was (by all accounts he was a great guy). The documentary is affectionate, very funny and absolutely riveting. It's very short (under 90 minutes) and there's never a dull moment. A must see for Castle fans and horror movie fans. My one complaint--there were very few sequences shown from his pictures. That aside this is just great.
| 1
|
train_8013
|
Yes, it's another great magical Muppet's movie and I adore them all; the characters, the movies, the TV show episodes (it's the best comedy or musical TV show ever) and all the artists behind it. But here they did such a rare fatal mistake and I'm surely talking about the weird ending !! I think it's very dangerous to involve that much, in American drama, and end a love affair by marriage !! We, as all the poor viewers, feel so free or maybe happy for the absence of its annoyance, peevishness and misery ! So we all enjoy these stories which gather 2 cute heroes as couple in love without the legitimate bond like Mickey Mouse and Minnie, Superman and Lois Lane, Dick Tracy and Tess, etc. So with all of the previous couples and their likes I bet that you feel safe, serenity and peace. Therefore when you look at what the makers of this movie had already done you'll be as mad as me !They made the weak miserable creature (Kermit) marry his daily nightmare, the most vexatious female ever (Miss Piggy) ! This is a historical change by the measures of the American entertainment's industry ! And it was pretty normal to have a negative impact upon the audience whom just refused to bless or believe or being satisfied with that sudden marriage (even the pathetic frog didn't have the time or the proper opportunity to think or to decide anything !). Therefore no wonder at all when you know that this movie is the most failure one in their cinematic serious, grossing only 25 millions vis-à-vis 65 millions earned by the first one (The Muppet Movie 1979) five years earlier !!Simply in this movie they took Manhattan, and my rest too !
| 1
|
train_14993
|
A truly dreadful film. I did not know initially that this was a Kiwi effort - but very soon I started to realize that all the characters were speaking with hardly disguised kiwi accents under the fake American ones. Why did it need to be set n America anyway? - it could have been set in NZ and then the actors could have used their normal voices. Surely someone in the production team could hear the dreadful attempts at speaking with American accents? A bad bad film. I am surprised it has lasted this long - how did it make it out of the can? It just seemed like a very poor attempt at a Segal/Willis type action man flick.A TOTAL WASTE OF MONEY! If there was any TAXPAYER money in this piece of trash, I would be leading a revolution to have all the money put back into the Treasury. I am still reeling (get it? pun, reeling!) at the absolute garbage I have just seen. Why did I continue to watch? Well, I am a movie fanatic and cant help ,myself!
| 0
|
train_15153
|
I could not believe how awful this film was; I rarely watch commercial TV, but thought "Well, Diane Keaton is always worth watching". I stand corrected. Everyone involved should be hanging their heads in shame.I realize there are not a lot of great roles for women of a certain age, but the script to this was so inept, clichéd and baffling that I am surprised it ever got into development or that Ms. Keaton thought she could make a silk purse out of this sow's ear. None of the characters had a shred of believability and were so incredibly unlikeable. The acting looked like exercises in a BEGINNING class - I stared in open-mouthed horror through most of this wondering "What were they thinking?". Very, very sad that it has come to this. Don't waste your time.
| 0
|
train_8219
|
The Dirty Harry series began with very gritty cop action, and was almost immediately lightened up for "Magnum Force". By the time that "The Enforcer" rolled around, Dirty Harry was little more than a television cop show (saved only by Tyne Daly). After a break of seven years, Dirty Harry has finally gone back to his roots. Maybe he's been gone for too long this time.Clint Eastwood makes the first well-directed Harry film since Don Siegel made the first, which helps considerably. Harry is a darker character once again, not the nice cop he had become. He can once again say things like "Go ahead, make my day" and really mean it. "Sudden Impact" is a true Dirty Harry sequel. "The Enforcer" should never have been made.7.2 out of 10
| 1
|
train_2974
|
This film is excellently paced, you never have to wait for a belly laugh to come up for more than about a minute and there's much more going on than the initial premise of the film. Throughout it there are mockeries of the traditional schmaltzy local-boys-done-good-overcoming-adversity genre of which this parodies. Don't let anyone tell you that they're trying to get cheap laughs just by using obscenities;- sure, there's plenty of that but it's all contextual, not gratuitous. I loved this film and it only cost me £2.99 on DVD , so in terms of entertainment value for money, it has been the best film I've seen this year.
| 1
|
train_12254
|
I've seen this movie after watching Paltrow's version. I've found that one a very good one, and I thought this would not be as good... but I was wrong: British version was far better and enjoyable! I found Jeremy Northam more "agreeable" than Mark Strong, but I can say that Strong catches much better Austen's Knightley. Anyway, both versions are good,but anyone that loved Austen's books, should watch this movie. I agree with *caalling*: Andrew Davies changed a few things, but still remains faithful to the original.10 out of 10My 2 cents!
| 1
|
train_18905
|
No real plot to this one, just a series of short skits acting out some VERY old jokes. I chuckled once or twice in the beginning, much to my chagrin. But even at only 73 minutes this film wears out it's welcome before too long and becomes stale and tedious (with some nudity sprinkled in here and there to keep you awake). Still as bad as this movie is (and that's pretty putrid), it's a comedic gem compared to pretty much ANYthing by Aaron Seltzer & Jason Friedberg (Date movie, Epic movie, Meet the Spartans) Also the song is sadly kind of catchy in a sad way.Eye Candy: 11 pair of tits, 3 bushes, 3 asses My Grade: D Code Red DVD Extras: Original trailer for this film; and trailers for "Beyond the Door", "Dead Pit", "the Farmer", "obsessed Ones", "Power Play", "Sole Survivor", & "Wacky Taxi"
| 0
|
train_9914
|
Reviewed at the World Premiere screening Sept. 9, 2006 at the Isabel Bader Theatre during the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF).This had an interesting premise but seemed to go on too long with too many shots of piles of eWaste (recycled computers, keyboards, cables etc. shipped over to China by the ton and then sorted and remade into new products to sell back) and other desolation.The filmmakers tried to get more people interviews to boost the human element but were frequently prevented from doing so due to Chinese censorship. Still, what was there was interesting. The bits of a Shanghai high end real estate agent preening and strutting around showing off her luxurious mansion and gardens, intercut with the scenes of others living in medieval conditions were especially striking. The opening tracking shot of a 480m factory floor was quite something as well. Scenes of the activity at the Three Gorges Dam project were also a complement to the Jia Khang-je films at TIFF (the feature Still Life/Sanxia Haoren & the documentary Dong) which were also built around that subject.Director Jennifer Baichwal, Producer Nick de Pencier, Cinematographer Peter Mettler and subject Edward Burtynsky were all there on stage for a Q&A after the world premiere. Producer Noah Weinzweig was introduced from the audience and was thanked as the most key person that assisted in the on the ground access in China itself.
| 1
|
train_13654
|
May (Anne Reid) and Toots (Peter Vaughan) are paying an apparently infrequent visit to their son Bobby (Steven Mackintosh) and his family in London. Even as the visit begins, Toots suffers a fatal heart attack, leaving May adrift, unsure, and questioning her life and future. Finding herself attracted to her daughter's boyfriend Darren (Daniel Craig), her actions lead to inevitable consequences.Beautifully filmed, but for all its heralded realism and acclaim, The Mother offers a collection of mostly unpleasant, even repellent characters, and asks the viewer to engage with them. Reid shines as May, and it is her skill and commitment as a wonderfully understated actor that salvages the film from a completely depressing mire, but Michell and Kureishi have allowed Craig, Mackintosh and Cathryn Bradshaw to create such utterly obnoxious characters, that it becomes increasingly difficult to care what happens to May. As written, the characters played by Mackintosh and Bradshaw are in fact so utterly selfish and cold-hearted that one begins to wonder what exactly was Kureishi trying to say. As directed, they are either unwilling or unable to lift Bobby and Paula above the two dimensional in their ghastly selfishness. Worth seeing for Reid's performance, but little else. A crying shame...
| 0
|
train_14020
|
Why did I waste my time with this movie? There was not a single funny joke or line throughout. The slapstick wasn't even mildly funny. I mean really, an out of control vacuum sucking pipe? Why has the National Lampoon's name been attached to this movie? Even Christmas Vacation was better than this (I actually thought that film was very funny).AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE!
| 0
|
train_21188
|
If the only sex you've ever had is with a farm animal, then the tag line for this movie is probably still misleading.This is by far one of the most boring movies I've had the pleasure to try and watch lately. I found the DVD lying around at my friend's house, and I made the sad mistake of not burning it.I am unable to tell any details without spoiling the movie because there are only about 5 details to this movie. Just try to imagine someone making a movie about things on c-span only the fictional movie is 10 times less interesting than the most boring debate on c-span.I think there is a conspiracy somewhere in this movie, but I was unable to tell exactly what it was after I gouched my eyeballs out and threw them at Richard Gere.
| 0
|
train_12775
|
It as absolutely incredible to me that anyone could make the comment that this film is not preachy. It is not only oppressively preachy, but absurd, stagebound, dramatically straight-jacketed, and painfully overwrought. Watching it, one feels like an 8 year old child being punished by having to write "I will not become a fascist" on the blackboard 100 times.Now I understand that it was made during the height of WW2, and was intended to be a brave condemnation of Hitler and the terrible suffering he brought about, (which anyone would whole-heartedly applaud) and I'm sure it accurately captured the mood of the day. But it is presented in such an immature, over-obvious, sledgehammer way, it fails abysmally as a work of art.The only good performances here are from Paul Lukas, who brings sincerity and intensity to his role as a quietly heroic anti-fascist; and Lucile Watson as the amusingly ill-mannered rich grandmother who slowly comes to realize how dangerous the world has become. Though their rootless upbringing has subjected them to all kinds of hardships, the children are ridiculously shown as robotically well-behaved little snips. They do not even remotely resemble real human beings. And Bette Davis, a great actress, here is so one dimensionally noble I cringed every time she was on screen. Her every word, her every gesture is meant to convey how SUPPORTIVE and UNDERSTANDING she is of the SACRIFICES her husband has to make and the great CAUSE he is fighting for, that she must've been wired to receive a painful electric shock if she dared allowed any hint of doubt or shading to surface in her portrayal.So yes, this is a very IMPORTANT film, just not a very good one.
| 0
|
train_19926
|
I couldn't believe it. I had to rub my eyes a few times. Was it true? Yes, there were Billy Dee Williams, Jeff Conaway, Maxwell Caulfield and Tracy Scoggins - all of them have some manner of talent but here they all were in what basically adds up to a Cinemax-style skin flick set on board a spaceship!Sad as it is, "Alien Intruder" tries to be unique, with a computer virus/alien demon/harpy/whatever else you want to call her named Ariel (Scoggins) infiltrating this sort-of high-tech virtual reality station on board a spaceship where four men are allowed to live out their fantasies as the system is over-seen by their captain (Williams).Interesting? Maybe, but here everything just plays out like a well-padded episode of "Red Shoe Diaries". Williams out-classes everything right and left, and looks like he'd rather be doing anything else, ANYWHERE else. Ah, the things people do for money....The FX are pretty static, maybe even less than what you'd expect for a straight-to-video cheapie like this. Unfortunately, even the female nudity is less than you'd expect. SEXUAL INNUENDO is the real star here and, of course, it gets ALL the best scenes.If you like a movie that's all tease and no brains, check out "Alien Intruder". Of course, you'll probably have to look no further than Cinemax at 2 or 3 in the morning.No stars, not even for what star power this flick can muster.Leave this one lost in space.
| 0
|
train_9776
|
Its taken a few viewings for me to really wrap myself around this one, but for me Tears of Kali is one of the horror highlights of the 00's and as far as independent horror goes a veritable masterpiece. An anthology horror, it takes on the story of the fictional Taylor-Eriksson Group, a cult of sorts based in India whose members set out in search of ultimate self knowledge and healing of the psyche, with unpleasant results that echo down the years. With bookend segments set in India the film is made chiefly of three stories set in Germany, illustrating the aftermath of the work of the Taylor-Eriksson Group, with some pretty nasty gore at times. Its an interesting set up as these things go, but what sets this film apart is the way the imagery is so carefully set up to develop the films horror. Bad things have been unleashed and the general course of the film is a look at how the quest for self knowledge and ultimate therapy brings horror to patients, healers and others and the film is loaded with smart visual clues to the power of the dark forces with which it deals, dark forces unbound by time, place or even personality. Good examples of this are found in the first story especially, dealing with a journalist interviewing a lady in a mental hospital. Previous to this story we have seen Lars Eriksson and notably his wonky (lazy?) eye, we also see him healing or at least comforting a patient. The lady mental patient of the first story is seen in the same stance as Eriksson healing a fellow patient, also as she wraps up the canvases from the art class that she runs among her fellow patients one of their pictures is seen, a face with lazy eye like Erikssons. There are also references to folk in minuscule roles, extras and walk ons having extra sensory perceptions of what is going on in the film, showing the badness that has been unleashed spreading and able to almost infect others. There is more to the film philosophically than just evil within, it is a film about death, suffering and possible redemption too all bound in a structure derived from Hindu beliefs in a fashion that seems like it might just be exploitation but has more relation to actual beliefs than one might expect (at least from the research that I did on wikipedia). Writer/director Andreas Marschall definitely deserves some significant credit for his skill in constructing the film. As well as being thoughtful, the film is pretty chilling too, the soundtrack of Bharti India and Panama John has a great eerie piano jingle and there are a couple of notable performances, Michael Balaun as a sinister doctor and Cora Chilcot as a freaky patient especially good. The third story also has a fine turn from veteran Mathieu Carrière as a faith healer. The biggest problem of the film is that it is not that involving a lot of the time so potential for fear is lost but these and a couple of other performances achieve involvement pretty well. So, the film isn't quite as gripping as it might be, the acting occasionally off and the pacing too, but mostly I thought it was pretty great, if a shade short of its possible brilliance. Well worth a look for adventurous horror fans I think.
| 1
|
train_19530
|
One of the cornerstones of low-budget cinema is taking a well-known, classic storyline and making a complete bastardization out of it. Phantom of the Mall is no exception to this rule. The screenwriter takes the enduring Phantom of the Opera storyline and moves it into a late '80s shopping mall. However, the "Phantom's" goal now is simply to get revenge upon those responsible for disfiguring his face and murdering his family. The special effects do provide a good chuckle, especially when body parts begin appearing in dishes from the yogurt stand. Pauly Shore has a small role which does not allow him to be as fully obnoxious as one would expect, mostly due to the fact that his fifteen minutes of MTV fame had not yet arrived. If you're looking for a few good laughs at the expense of the actors and special effects crew, check this flick out. Otherwise, keep on looking for something else.
| 0
|
train_486
|
'The Luzhin Defence' is a movie worthy of anyone's time. it is a brooding, intense film, and kept my attention the entire time. John Turturro is absolutely stunning in his portrayal of a tender, eccentric chess Grandmaster, and Emily Watson is spell-binding as the gentle but rebellious daughter of a highly respected Russian family. The chemistry between Watson and Turturro on screen is obvious from the moment their characters meet in the story. All in all, this movie is one of the best in-depth looks at the life of a chess Grandmaster, and Turturro and Watson add a whole non-mainstream, non-cliche feel to the film. Most people will come out of the theater thinking, and feeling somewhat touched by this brilliant look at the most unlikely of love stories.
| 1
|
train_6266
|
This picture for me scores very highly as it is a hugely enjoyable and amusing spoof of Alien Invaders taking over a town and many of its' men folk.The town and the players are all decked out in sort of 1950's style and the whole movie has a deliberate tacky and kitschy feel to it. Some of the scenes are hilarious like with the birth of an alien creature.All the actors give full blooded and serious performances which makes the film even funnier and the special effects and Aliens are at least it seems to me intentionally 3rd rate to add to the amusement.These type of films often deserve a cult following:8/10.
| 1
|
train_8852
|
Tarantino once remarked on a melodrama from the 1930s called Backstreet that "tragedy is like another character" in the film. The same could be said- and not withstanding bringing up Tarantino- for Sidney Lumet's best work in years, a melodrama where character is of the utmost concern not simply because of what's at stake with the cast involved. Kelly Masterson doesn't have a masterpiece of a script here (it basically breaks into crazy killer mode by the end in a series of climactic events that only work by the very end, and even there suspension of disbelief is paramount), but her script does convey character before plot, and in a story where the actions surround a heist it's crucial to know who these people are beat by beat. It's bleak as hell, unforgiving as Satan, but also absolutely riveting 90% of the time.Chalk it up not just because Lumet knows how to handle a non-linear script where we see the day-to-day actions of character to character before during, and mostly after the botched 'mom-&-pop' jewelry store robbery occurs, but because of the formidable cast assembled (which, I might add, is Lumet's specialty). Philip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke are brothers with their own respective financial f***-ups, and the former approaches the latter on what looks like a fool-proof heist: looting their own mother and father's jewelry store in Westchester. Hawke's Hank involves another shady character though, murders occur, and suddenly it's tragedy on a Greek scale affecting the brothers and their father, played by a perfect Albert Finney. It's the kind of material that most actors love- characters who, like in Dog Day Afternoon, are painfully human, flawed to the bone but only wanting love &/or things to be set right, and have the complete inability to fulfill their wants and needs.In this case though Hoffman and Hawke are matched splendidly; Hoffman has, until the aforementioned last ten minutes, a super-calm and occasionally joking demeanor that reveals him as the brains of the operation, but then smaller scenes where he breaks down emotionally (i.e. with Finney or the car scene with Tomei) push his talents to the limit; Hawke, meanwhile, is called a loser by his ex-wife and daughter, can't pay any debts at all, and is called a baby by his own father, and he fills the bill of the part in all the ways that matter- he's not quite as flawed as his older brother, but who wants to pick a straw for that title? And Finney, as mentioned, is spot-on all the way through, making his turn in Big Fish look like child's play (the final scenes with him are terrifyingly tragic, his face recoiling in a horror that has built up all through the second half).Also featuring supporting turns from a finely ditsy and perversely two-timing Marisa Tomei, Bug's Michael Shannon as bad-ass white trash, and Amy Ryan, Brian F. O'Byrne and Rosemary Harris making brief, exact impressions, this is a film with a tremendous lot of skill and heart- but not a forgiving heart- with a story that doubles back on details not for showy plot devices but to make clear every step of a family's perpetual downward spiral. If it's not as mind-blowing as Serpico or Network or the Pawnbroker or 12 Angry Men it comes as close as anything Lumet's done since.
| 1
|
train_19249
|
This mess is so bad it doesn't even qualify as horror. Debbie Rochon's talent is completely wasted in this film. She is not even the villain. The rest of the actors look like porno wannabes and the plot is so lame I won't even mention it.Do yourself a favor and skip to the end credits to hear upcoming band TwoMarlowe perform "Better Than Sex" it's total 80's Disco candy song. Nice up tempo song about Gambleing & Sex. Way more entertaining than "Bleed". Put it this way, When one has the equipment to copy videos, but decides only to record the song at the end of movie, you have a really "BAD" movie.
| 0
|
train_13349
|
One Star. That's all this documentary deserves. I haven't felt this disappointed in watching a movie, let alone a documentary, in quite some time.I'm a BIG fan of the "Walking With..." series, including it's Nigel Marvin spin-offs, for all their gleeful fun yet informative information. And although the subject of prehistoric man has never interested me nearly as much as other prehistoric creatures, the subject is still interesting and unique to explore. Having seen all the other docs from the series, I figured I need to see this one as well, especially after seeing relatively good reviews in other places.Well for those of you who put up a good review of this doc... what were you thinking?! lol.Though the information that they were able to get through was interesting, the presentation failed in every other way possible. It had a terrible flow, was incredibly unfocused in what it was trying to say (with information scrambled and sometimes out of of place), horrible effects (that includes the few moments of CGI and especially the makeup effects), and overused MTV-style camera effects.Speaking of the makeup effects, one reviewer here mentioned how laughable the scene was when the cavemen come across this giant ape and how it looks a lot like a 70s man-in-suit horror movie. Well there are plenty of moments just like that were the people portraying the ape men looked ridiculous and acted ridiculous. None of this is helped by horrible camera positions and compositions.The worst part of all is none of it is shown in an interesting or dynamic way, or looks remotely real. It doesn't even look like it was taken seriously. It also lacked any emotional punch that the predecessors of the series had. Remember the episode in "Walking With Dinosaurs" of the fate of the Ornithochirus (sp?)? That episode still gets me on the verge of tears every time I watch it. It's this sort of engagement with the subject that lacks here most of all. When you are more engaged in the subject and it's own personal story, even one that is just speculation, you care more about the facts surrounding it.The only saving graces of this production are the fairly good narration (at least in the BBC version I saw) and the music. Otherwise, DO NOT bother even renting this one unless you want to have a good laugh (which I did frequently, but usually followed by rolling eyes). This does not belong on the shelf with the other "Walking With..." docs.And does it make sense to learn that this doc was NOT produced or directly involved with the same people who did the others in the series? Hmmm...
| 0
|
train_21837
|
Far from providing the caffeine kick you'd expect from a film that shares its name with the most energy-boosting of warm beverages, Coffy clunks about and never really rises above being just a ropey revenge tale. Indeed, if the movie was a cup of coffee, it'd be rather weak and watery, littered with a few undesirable dregs and lacking in a lingering aftertaste. Sporadically it hits the spot, but otherwise it isn't the hot action-drama it hopes to be.Plot-wise, Coffy is a nurse who takes the law into her own hands and delivers hard justice to the drug-pushing, lady-pimpin', mob-suckers that hooked her younger sister into a depraved, sick state. Socio-political commentary on the plight of urban black youths in America is prominent in Coffy, and it makes for some thought-provoking stuff as Coffy crusades against the political corruption and white establishment racism that profits and acts as a parasite off the targeted Afro-American minorities. Sadly, the timely messages are undermined by the film's poor quality and lack of focus. Coffy's ideas are important, it's just that they are not well-aimed.One of the plus points of Coffy is the presence of Blaxploitation icon Pam Grier. Grier goes at her role with gusto and makes for an appealing action heroine as she shotguns down the scum in her often spectacular acts of vigilante violence (how do you deal with a house full of hoods? Drive the car right through the front door!). It's just a shame that the storyline wavers on occasions, wasting time squeezing as much sexual exploitation as possible. The low budget can't have helped, but neither does the fact that for a Blaxploitation flick, Coffy lacks groove. Just as the issues are undermined by the lack of quality, consequently the entertainment and excitement are also skewered by moments of dullness and misdirection.The total result is workmanlike and wooden. We get a hip heroine but not a hip movie. It's a shame as Coffy has its moments and should rightly be regarded as a key film in the Blaxploitation craze; it just never ascends above being an average, lukewarm number.
| 0
|
train_10719
|
Spacecamp is a movie that I plan to show my Daughter Julia Ann Ruth Morgan some day. Seeing Joaquin Phoenix in this movie makes you realize how far hes come since playing a Roman Emperor in the film Gladiator. I am pleased to say that I now have comms with the Artificial Intelligence of QE2 who said that I was Young and that is true. Holodeck Comms with my Daughter on Coaltrain came through Coaltrain Gate Julia Ann Glow "Hide Daddy". The fact that my Daughters Artificial Intelligence is still speaking like a six year old means that my Daughter Julia Ann Ruth Morgan representing Peace to the friendly Ki Alien Creators of humans may not have been taken to a an American Bunker in time. We have the power to change the future with Faster Than Light comms. I order that my Ex Wife and Daughter Julia Ann Ruth Morgan be taken to an American Bunker as soon as possible. My Daughter Julia is 23rd in command of the Planet Earth and a bridge officer. She already said that she doesn't like bullies. Having had someone steal her Gameboy and Gauntlet II game from my Mothers car she gets concerned about other thieves stealing her other toys. Julia has been growing up fast. The time of JFK and QE2 starting life over again on this planet is not until 2023. Julia would be a Young Lady by then and her artificial Intelligence would have been greatly expanded upon. If I have to go to a bunker to continue the American Leadership then I am in a command post and not really hiding as a first priority. President Jack Kennedys artificial Intelligence said recently that drastic measures could be taken to stop Global Warming at any time. Thanks boss thats similar to my Daughter Julias AI telling me hide and stay indoors. Kate Capshaw is now married to Steven Spielberg. Wow are we ever going to miss his movies if society collapses. If you value freedom of speech like President Kennedy and myself then please do not delete this reviewer. Check out Joaquin Phoenixs other movies also.
| 1
|
train_13679
|
Unreal "movie", what were these people on?? A mix of French Upstairs Downstairs, mating horses,porn (not suggested, its pretty full on for a film) & bestiality with a bit of Benny Hill music & chase scenes thrown in, its sounds crazy & its even more so to watch. **spoiler** It plods along in a tedious fashion for quite a while,.... then a Lamb does a runner, prompting woman in period dress to run off after it, she goes into the woods where she is set upon by an erect "penis" attached to a man in a bear/rat manky suit, I put it like that as its obvious the "penis" is in charge & gets way too much screen time, ejaculating for the most of it, anyway, in a nutshell, it turns out she liked a bit of bear/rat tadger & thats about it, the rest is just padding. **end spoiler** A film made to shock & offend, thus getting talked about, any publicity is good publicity I suppose,a waste of time really, but the "main event" has to be seen to be believed, its hard to imagine that anyone thought it was a good idea as they filmed it.
| 0
|
train_9008
|
I saw this film without to know what about were... I'm a fan of Branagh, even more his Shakespeare' films, and, in the beginning, I saw it only for this... and I finished with tears in my eyes, because the great, great serenity, values, affect and brave philosophy about Life of Helena's girl. Recommended to people who are bored with TV programming (in Spain, at least).
| 1
|
train_24342
|
Kirsten Dunst is terribly overrated as an actress. You can tell always she's just "acting". I like Izzard though. Plot is awfully boring. The viewer has no real connections to the characters, never knowing who to really sympathize with, or even care about. Slow, dull movie, with some laughs, but few and not very funny anyway. Plot is not engaging or suspenseful in the least. You can see each plot turn coming a mile away. What is this movie supposed to be? Comedy? Drama? Who cares? You won't by the end of this film.
| 0
|
train_22878
|
While the premise behind The House Where Evil Dwells may be intriguing, the execution is downright pathetic. I'm not even sure where to begin as I've got so many problems with this movie. I suppose I'll just number a few of them: 1. The Acting When you see that Edward Albert, Doug McClure, and Susan George (and her teeth) are the stars of your movie, you know you're in trouble? Not that it matters much to me, but these are hardly A-List names. Susan George may have been in a couple of movies I enjoy, but I've never considered her the greatest actress I've ever seen. And in this movie, her acting is embarrassing. As for the other two, the less said the better.2. The Ghosts The ghosts or spirits or whatever you want to call them reminded me quite a bit of the ghosts in the haunted mansion ride.at Disney World. And, they are about as frightening. And why did they have to be so obvious? Subtlety is not a characteristic of The House Where Evil Dwells.3. The Plot How predictable can one movie be? The outcome of this movie is painfully obvious once you meet the three main characters. If you couldn't see where this movie was headed after about 15 minutes, you need to see more movies.4. The Convenient Priest What are the chances that the haunted house you buy just happens to be across the street from a group of Japanese monks? Not to mention that one of them knows the history of your house and comes over, knocks on the door, and asks if you need help removing evil spirits. Absurd is a word that comes to mind.5. Everything Else It's very difficult for me to think of any positives to write about. I suppose I'll give it a point for the opening scene and a point for the house's architecture. That's a sure sign of a winner noting the architecture as a highlight of any film doesn't say much about the actual movie.I'll stop. You should be able to get the idea from what I've already mentioned. And, I haven't even mentioned the annoying little girl or the Invasion of the Crabs or a multitude of other problems. Be warned, this thing is horrible.
| 0
|
train_14256
|
On the back burner for years (so it was reported) this television reunion of two of the most beloved characters in sitcom history started off badly - and went straight downhill from there. Mary Richards (Mary Tyler Moore) and her best friend Rhoda Morgenstern (Valerie Harper) meet in New York after a long estrangement and catch up on each other's lives. What a novel concept! But, sad to relate, nothing worth talking about (let alone making a movie about) has happened to either of them in the intervening years. So, instead, the script contents itself with throwing out one hoary old plot device after another (most having to do with older women in the workplace), while completely missing the quirky charm and sophistication that made the original show a winner. The supporting cast is instantly forgettable, the humor is nonexistent, and the chemistry which Moore and Harper once had together is gone. Moore allegedly stalled this project for years, waiting for "just the right script" before committing herself. If this was the one she considered "right", what on earth were the ones she turned down like? It's not the age of the characters that does this in (for time inevitably marches on), but the almost complete lack of imagination coupled with a blatant disregard for the elements that made the series work. At one time this was intended as a pilot but, all to obviously, it failed to generate any interest among potential sponsors. Or for that matter, among potential audiences. Quickly and mercifully forgotten, the film is a travesty and an insult to a classic.
| 0
|
train_4381
|
This sweeping drama has it all: top notch acting, incredible photography, good story. It is often compared to "Braveheart" because both movies take place in historical Scotland. Even though I love Braveheart, I think this is the better of the two films. Jessica Lange gave an incredible performance (should have been nominated for an Oscar). Liam Neeson is fantastic in the title role. Tim Roth plays one of the most evil, despicable, characters in film history (he was nominated for an Oscar). John Hurt is excellent as Lord Montrose, another dislikeable character. I am always amazed at the incredible range of characters that John Hurt can play. This is a story of a dispute over money between Rob Roy and his clan, and Lord Montrose. Rob Roy is a self made man, who will not solve his problems with Montrose if it violates his sense of honor. Montrose, who, inherited his title, has no sense of honor. And that is basically what this story is all about; honor of the common man versus corruption of the nobility. This movie is very entertaining, it should appeal to all. It has romance, action, beautiful scenery, and has a exciting plot. One of my favorite films.
| 1
|
train_19469
|
Blue Monkey (1987) or 'Invasion of the BodySuckers' as it's known here in the UK was a pretty boring horror movie about an old man who gets bitten in a greenhouse by some mysterious toxic plant!!!! The man gets rushed to hospital, where this worm like creature comes out of his mouth, of course this transforms into this insect monster and proceeds to go on the rampage!! Despite Steve Railsback and John Vernon being in the movie, i found it to be boring, with a flat predictable storyline, un-interesting characters, cheap special effects and lack of action!!!! Horror fans don't really need to track this rare movie down, you wont be missing much trust me!!! I give this movie 2/10.
| 0
|
train_8675
|
Without being one of my favorites, this is good for being a change of pace... even if only for a few minutes.It all starts with a big fight between Tom, Jerry and Spike (who is renamed "Butch" here). They're all beating each other, but suddenly Spike makes a heroic and admirable decision: he stops the fight and suggests that they all should be friends. So, all of them sign a peace treaty and become friends... which isn't going to last for long.Meanwhile, the three become affectionate, patient and kind to each other. They even save each other when one of them is in danger of life. The relationship goes nothing but excellent, until a very big steak appears and they all become greedy. The three are guilty to return to their usual fights and rivalries.But still... to see Tom, Jerry and Spike as friends is truly a delightful and grateful experience, even if only for a while.Oh, by the way, as a curious fact, two songs from "The Wizard of Oz" are played here in instrumental versions: "We're off to see the Wizard" and "Somewhere over the rainbow".
| 1
|
train_12473
|
A warm, touching movie that has a fantasy-like quality.Ellen Burstyn is, as always, superb.Samantha Mathis has given many great performances, but there is just something about this one will haunt your memory.Most of all, you've got to see this amazing 5-yr. old, Jodelle Ferland. I was so captivated by her presence, I had to buy the movie so I could watch her again and again. She is a miracle of God's creation.Judging by the high IMDB rating, I'm not the only one who was mesmerized by this young actress.
| 1
|
train_20714
|
This doesn't quite plumb the depths of Creepshow 3, but it comes close. It also uses the same technique of using some of the same actors in multiple roles throughout the anthology, which is distracting to say the least.It also rather irritating rips off The Twilight Zone (with the bookshop being comparable to Serling's later Night Gallery). Unfortunately, the producers & writers forgot that Serling would build up sympathy for his characters before messing them over. None of the characters are particularly sympathetic or interesting until the last segment.Framing story: Adam West is... well, himself. He doesn't go the Bruce Wayne/Batman campy 60s route, but he rarely does. He simply plays the not-particularly-enigmatic "Jay" (there's an ominous spine-chilling name to compare to the likes of Dr. Terror, Eramus, and The Cryptkeeper), and makes some mildly awkward/creepy statements.Abernathy: Seen Rod Serling's "A Stop in Willoughby"? Then you've seen this. The red herring of the nutso wife is introduced to no purpose, but even the main character's friend identifies him as a wimp. As well directed as can be expected, but basically incoherent.Nex's Diner: Reminiscent of various Serling time travel stories, mixed with Steve Allen's "A Meeting of Minds." Most of the actors aren't too bad (except for Josh Astin as Cassius, who manages to walk, talk and even breathe awkwardly), and the idea is mildly interesting. But like Abernathy, it doesn't go anywhere. The main character raises some relatively reasonable questions, bugs out a bit (who wouldn't?), and for some reason he ends up banished to a nuclear wasteland.Life Replay: Not a bad little piece, and manages to predate both Click and Creepshow 3. I suppose it says something that people are fascinated by the magical properties of remote controls. The main character is mildly sympathetic. Nothing substantially innovative here, but it's okay.Fighting Spirit: You see the twist coming a mile away but like the main character, it has some heart and it's a decent story of defeat and redemption.Finale: So... why do people end up in cold storage in silver lame suits? Don't know. And doesn't make sense. So... all the protagonists wandered into the bookstore and became trapped? Kinda undermines the happy ending with the boxer (thanks, guys!), and the guy in the first segment died. So how did he get trapped? Did he visit the bookstore before he died, got trapped and... didn't die? What? Huh? I supposer this isn't expected to make sense because it's supernatural. But still...Overall: basically not dissimilar from the two newer Twilight Zone series, or some episodes of Tales From the Darkside or Monsters. The last two stories and part of the second are probably worth your time. But there's nothing really spectacular here.
| 0
|
train_7212
|
I would not hesitate to put this adaptation of 'Death Trap" in a top 5 list of the best stage-to-movie adaptations ever. Caine and Reeves (an underrated actor who never really got a chance to do more than soggy romances and "Superman") play off each other extremely well here. Even Dyan Cannon - who I normally don't care for - is perfectly cast in a role that exploits her annoyance value as an actress.I'm not sure that comparisons of "Deathtrap" with "Sleuth" - another brilliant stage-to-screen adaptation featuring Michael Caine - are valid, or even fair. Yes, the two stories have a lot in common. But "Sleuth" is as much about class warfare as the battle of wits, and the house in "Sleuth" is set is at least as much a character in the movie as the two actors - the house doesn't really have an equivalent in "Deathtrap". And "Deathtrap" isn't so much a battle of wits as it is a pointed vignette about how people are no damned good (and never as smart as they think they are) and deserve everything they get. I'll just say that both movies are superb examples of the genre, and well worth your time and money. This is America, after all. You don't have to choose! I won't give away the twists and turns of the plot, but I don't think it matters anyway. I've watched the DVD eight or nine times in a dozen years, and still enjoyed the chemistry and the timing and the mean, scary moments when things go "all pear shaped". It's all done so well that the ride becomes more important than the actual destination.Anyone who likes black-hearted comedy and suspense in the Hitchcock style of film-making will probably enjoy "Deathtrap" immensely.
| 1
|
train_11256
|
Without doubt the best of the novels of John Le Carre, exquisitely transformed into a classic film. Performances by Peter Egan (Magnus Pym, The Perfect Spy), Rudiger Weigang (Axel, real name Alexander Hampel, Magnus' Czech Intelligence controller), Ray McAnally (Magnus' con-man father) and Alan Howard (Jack Brotherhood, Magnus' mentor, believer and British controller), together with the rest of the characters, are so perfect and natural, the person responsible for casting them should have been given an award. Even the small parts, such as Major Membury, are performed to perfection. It says a lot for the power of the performances, and the strength of the characters in the novel that, despite the duplicity of Magnus, one cannot help but feel closer to Magnus and Axel than to Jack Brotherhood and the slimy Grant Lederer of U.S. Intelligence. I have read the book at least a dozen times, and watched the movie almost as many times, and continue to be mesmerized by both. If I had one book to take on a desert island, A Perfect Spy would be the choice above all others.
| 1
|
train_10684
|
In watching this early DeMille work, it was once again reinforced to me that early DeMille is far superior to late DeMille. His attention to use of light within scenes is remarkable. His pacing is very good, enabling much to be told in the space of an hour or so. It is a pity that he wasn't as intuitive about the style of his later sound films as he seemed to be in his silent films.This was the first film in which I had seen Cleo Ridgely. She was remarkable, quite restrained and yet conveyed a broad spectrum of emotions.The ending is wonderful.
| 1
|
train_1666
|
This is a film about 17th Century Italian artists and one artist in particular, a woman Artemisia, an unheard of profession for females at that time, and she dared to paint the male nude detailing his unique musculature.The camera work is principally indoors for that is where the artists mainly worked. There are some great shots. Close-ups by candle light suggest the beautiful work of the classical painters and it is fascinating to watch the painters and their students supported by elaborate scaffolding brushing in details of religious frescoes. It is not surprising that the artistic elements of the film (costumes,faces, make-up) are quite superbly authentic because the Italian churches have preserved all these details in their frescoes for centuries. The beautiful Artemisia is urged by her father to study under the great Florentine artist, Tassi, who has become expert in the art of perspective and landscape painting (something very new) but the unsuspecting Artemisia is introduced to more than new techniques in painting. After posing for her, Tassi violently rapes her. Her father is outraged. Court proceedings follow.This romantic drama has a fairly simple story with an unsatisfactory ending. The outstanding feature of the film is its artistic presentation and attention to detail. Scenes such as women running across a field with the wind billowing their voluminous clothing add wonderful effects.Artemisia says she paints to please herself; her father paints to please others. As for this film, it will please most, I think.
| 1
|
train_22978
|
I sincerely consider this movie as another poor effort of Dominican Movie Industry. The first 30 minutes of the movie are a little funny but then when they switch their role in the society (men doing what women usually do and women doing what men usually do) the movie falls. Becoming boring and not funny at all. They let many things without explanation and the end of the movie is predictable. I didn't like the way as a Roberto Angel played his character and his little either. I went to the movies theater hoping to see a good work but I went out really disappointed.I don't recommend this movie.
| 0
|
train_24824
|
This was a rip-off of the same garbage we had to watch Bob Saget host during the half-hour before this. Dave Coulier only thought he was funny and it was pretty much the same show as America's Funniest Home Videos except with a hosts who have a combined IQ of three. Tawny Kitaen must've really needed the money and Coulier had to go to the recycle bin for his jokes. It was torture enough having to see him imitate Popeye and other washed up cartoon starts on Full House. That one dude who played all of the practical jokes on everyone deserves to be on the receiving end of a Grade A wedgie. Coulier must've needed to money to please Alannis Morisette while they were dating.
| 0
|
train_19050
|
I almost made a fool of myself when I was going to start this review by saying " This movie reminded me of BILLY ELLIOT " but then I looked up the resume of screenwriter Lee Hall only to find out that he was the guy who wrote BILLY ELLIOT so it's Mr Hall who's making a fool of himself not me Am I being a bit cruel on him ? No because Lee has something most other aspiring screenwriters from Britain don't have - He has his foot in the door , he has previously written a successful British movie that won awards and made money at the box office and what does he do next ? He gives the audience more of the same Young Jimmy Spud lives on some kitchen sink estate . He is bullied at school and no one loves him . The only thing keeping him going is that he has aspirations to be a ballet dancer . No actually he has aspirations to be an angel but considering his household he may as well be a ballet dancer . He has a macho waster of a father who thinks " Ballet dancers are a bunch of poofs while his granddad says " Ballet dancers are as tough as any man you could meet . I remember seeing the Bolshoi ballet ... " Yup Ballet is a main talking point on a run down British council estate those days - NOT . Come to think of it neither is left wing politics which seems to be the sole preserve of middle class do gooders who live in nice big houses , so right away everything about this set up feels ridiculously false Another major criticism is that this is a film that has no clue who it's trying to appeal to . I have often criticised Channel 4 for broadcasting movies at totally inappropriate times ( THE LAND THAT TIME FORGOT at 6 am for example ) but they showed this at 2 am and for once they've got it spot on . Considering the story involves politics , ballet dancing ( Gawd I hate it ) lung cancer and poverty there's no way this can be deemed suitable for a family audience but since the main protagonist is an 11 year old child and features angels and ballet dancers ( Don't blame me if I seem obsessed with the subject - there was no need to refer to them ) there's not much here for an intelligent adult audience either . Of course if Lee Hall had been told at the script development stage by the producers that he should write a story featuring a schoolboy and an angel and had flatly refused saying that he wanted to write about other themes and stories then I will apologise but throughout the movie you do get the feeling that once the film was completed it was going to be marketed to the exact same audience who enjoyed BILLY ELLIOT
| 0
|
train_20106
|
Beverly garland was born in the wrong time. She was an actress ahead of her time, bringing power and grace to even such lame flicks as the Corman films she starred in. In Gunslinger, she's the town sheriff's wife. He gets offed, so she takes over his job to pursue his killers. She's better than the material she's working with, by far. The movie is gray, stilted, and mostly boring. There's some(unintentional)humor with the tire tracks everywhere, people running behind one building to emerge suddenly in front of another (I've heard of false fronts, but this is ridiculous!), and the truly stupid plot line of the newly widowed sheriff falling in love with the guy hired to kill her. Even if she hadn't loved her husband, it had only been something like a week or two since he'd died! And she ends up shooting the guy to death in the end, anyway. No luck with men, this one.The villain of the piece is another woman, the saloon owner. She's scheming to buy up a bunch of land just in case the railroad goes through and makes her rich. Her plan of action if it doesn't is pretty lame-she'll just steal as much from the town as she can and skedaddle. Hell, it's just her and her hired gun at the end against an entire town. Are you telling me these people aren't armed? Look what happened in real towns of the Old West when bank robbers came in to rob the bank, then were cut down in a hail of bullets by the armed and dangerous town folk.There'a a lot of pointless talking and riding around, interspersed with a few lame shoot outs. The ending is as grim as usual in a Corman flick, although thank goodness it lacks the moral proselytizing at the end that was in It Conquered the World. The sheriff turns over her badge to Sam Bass and rides off into the sunset, although the movie was so gray that you never saw the sun.
| 0
|
train_3355
|
May 1938. Hitler in Italy. Preparations for historical appointment with Mussolini.Emotions , tensions and forms of self-affirmation. a empty town, a housewife and a journalist. The meeting of two different worlds. Refuge for a mother with a sad life. Short filling for a classical victim. A story about solitude and silence. About the form of of life's nooks and desire like fight's form. The great character- a book gifted in a spring's afternoon. This movie is a poem, remarkable for the art to describe the shades of common loneliness. A pleading for a ineffable relation with reality. And with your interior world. The pictures of Il Duce, the clumsiness of Antonietta, the patience and the frailty tension of Gabriele, the art of director to give the sense of script grace two great actors makes this film sublime, foretaste of subtle delicacy, a wonderful film about hypocrisy and arbitrary verdict, about essence of life and repulsiveness of any tyranny. Loren and Mastroianni are the masters of a magnificent intelligent acting. A clear masterpiece.
| 1
|
train_1380
|
These type of movies about young teenagers struggling with their own sexuality were something unique and daring and daring a couple of years ago but more and more movies like this got made over the past few years, making it hard for the movies to still stand out really.Also this movie received little publicity, aside from the usual little film festivals that featured this little French movie, as well as the big festivals that are always fond of these type of little movies about everyday subjects that aren't being handled too often in movies. The film premiered at Cannes in 2007 and actually won some awards there as well.The movie doesn't really stand out from others, since it actually features little new once you've already seen some similar movies such as this one but this however really doesn't mean that "Naissance des pieuvres" is a bad one to watch. The movie is certainly a good watch, that handles its subject well and tells its story steadily and therefore also effectively, in a typical somewhat slow French cinematic pace.It's a coming of age movie, that focus on the life of mainly 3 totally different mid-teenagers. Sexuality is a big theme within the movie, which gets handled delicately and subtle. It makes the movie and its story overall a pretty realistic one, though perhaps a bit predictable, since the movie doesn't quite offer anything original enough within its genre.This type of French movie will probably scare off a lot of people because of the reason that they probably expect it to be very arty, with deep layers and meanings to it. "Naissance des pieuvres" however is a very accessible movie for everyone and you really don't have to be into Euro-teen movies to appreciate this movie. It's a sweet and somewhat sensual kind of movie, due to its subject and visual approach.The movie is also being made realistic by its actors, who don't had and have a lot of experience within the movie business but are authentic looking and feeling within their roles. The strong individual characters provide the movie with some nice themes and good moments.A good movie on its subject.7/10
| 1
|
train_21658
|
Oh my GOD. I bought this movie and...I...watched...the...whole...thing. . . Okay, it's going to be alright... I'l know I'll be okay in a month or two. Some time soon I hope to be rid of the flash backs. I was going to eat something after the movie but I just can't seem to get up the courage to try and hold any food down at the moment. Bad? Yes bad. Very BAD. BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD. Wait, bad doesn't seem to get the message across in quite the right way. Hmm... There isn't a word to describe just how awful.... not awful... Hmm disgustingly horribly casted/acted/filmed/directed/written. Now I don't know what to do but throw it out. Possibly burn it I wouldn't want it to end up at the bottom of an architectural dig a thousand years from now. The worst movie ever since "Hey Happy"
| 0
|
train_16977
|
What an empty and lack lustre rendition of the classic novel. I do wish people would stop messing about with classics when they clearly have no idea of the real intention or point of the original. This version is no different. I felt that the Ralph Fiennes version is much worse though as the casting of Juliette brioche as Kathy has got to be the worst casting decision EVER...anyway back to this version. It aims to make the story relevant to a contemporary setting and in a musical style. It succeeds in both but high art it is nit. Throwaway viewing for a rainy day maybe...The direction was average and the editing abysmal. Worse than the old Quincy. Deepak Verma does a great turn as Hindley and is in fact one of Britains wasted talents. The part of Heath was played with great charm and belief and I think that the casting is the strongest point of this project. Although a more talented director would have made better use of the facilities he had. Its clear that he was a director for hire and didn't instill the project with the passion that it deserved.
| 0
|
train_3127
|
I loved this movie. I knew it would be chocked full of camp and silliness like the original series. I found it very heart warming to see Adam West, Burt Ward, Frank Gorshin, and Julie Newmar all back together once again. Anyone who loved the Batman series from the 60's should have enjoyed Return to the Batcave. You could tell the actors had a lot of fun making this film, especially Adam West. And I'll bet he would have gladly jumped back into his Batman costume had the script required him to do so. I told a number of friends about this movie who chose not to view it... now they wished they had. I have all of the original 120 episodes on VHS. Now this movie will join my collection. Thank You for the reunion Adam and Burt.
| 1
|
train_19303
|
When i come on IMDb boards,I'm always fed up when i see a "the worst movie ever" post.After watching this *movie*,i think that i am soon going to create my own post!!The opening titles:great,some kind of lame zoom on a gas oven (yeah,focus on the fire=explosions=great action packed movie!!)The actors:I think that Ice T is a cool rapper,even a nice actor (sometimes, i insist,"sometimes") but the Steven seagal like policeman he plays is...beyond the words. The rest of the cast is...well i don't know where those actors were hired but jeez!!I bet my dog would have been a much better actor than them!!The plot:Hijacking.original isn't it??The action sequences:The first shot of the movie is an explosion.I told myself,well, cool!!At least there will be some nice pyrotechnics...I was dead wrong.The rest of the movie is mostly filled with low rent stock shots taken from the Air Force...The dialogs are hilarious,the music is pure crap,the end is happy( i mean i was happy at the end because the movie was over!!!)My cousin who was watching the movie was delighted( I'm 22, she's 42...well).I was on the verge of taking the movie and burn it.Maybe next time I'm gonna watch it...(who said never???)
| 0
|
train_16451
|
Ulli Lommel's 1980 film 'The Boogey Man' is no classic, but it's an above average low budget chiller that's worth a look. The sequel, 1983s 'Boogey Man II' is ultimately a waste of time, but at the very least it's an entertaining one if not taken the least bit seriously. Now II left the door open for another sequel, and I for one wouldn't have minded seeing at least one more. One day while I was browsing though the videos at a store in the mall I came across a film entitled 'Return of the Boogey Man.' When I found out it was a sequel to the earlier films I was happy to shell out a few bucks for it...I should have known better. Though the opening title is 'Boogey Man 3,' this is no sequel to those two far superior films I named above. Well, not totally anyway.Pros: Ha! That's a laugh. Is there anything good about this hunk of cow dung? Let's see...it has footage from 'The Boogey Man' and, um...it's mercifully short. Yeah, that's about it.Cons: Where to start? Decisions, decisions. First of all, this movie is a total bore. It goes from one scene to the next without anything remotely interesting or scary happening. The acting is stiff at best. The "actors" are most likely friends of the director who had no acting experience whatsoever before, and probably none since. The plot is nonexistent and script shoddily written. The direction is just plain awful. The director tries to make the film look all artsy fartsy by making the camera move around, lights flicker, and with filters, but it adds nothing. The music is dull and hard to hear in parts. Ties to the original are botched. Suzanna Love's character was named Lacey, not Natalie! And the events depicted in the beginning of the original did not take place in 1978. Also, if this has a 3 in the title, why is there no mention of what happened in II? Finally, this adds nothing new or interesting to either the series or the genre.Final thoughts: The people behind this waste of time and money should be ashamed of themselves. It's one thing if that had been an original film that was the director's first and sucked. But instead it's supposed to be a sequel to film that is no masterpiece, but is damn sure far more interesting and entertaining than this. If there ever is another sequel, which I doubt it, then it needs to forget this one ever happened and be handled either by Lommel himself or someone who has at least some idea of how to make a decent horror film.My rating: 1/5
| 0
|
train_1449
|
This is one of the best crime-drama movies during the late 1990s. It was filled with a great cast, a powerful storyline, and many of the players involved gave great performances. Pacino was great; he should have been nominated for something. John Cusack was good too, as long as the viewer doesn't mind his Louuu-siana accent. He may come off as annoying if you can't stand this dialect. The way that Pacino's character interacted with Cusack's character was believable, dramatic, and slightly comical at times. Danny Aiello was superb as always. David Paymer was great in a supporting role. Bridget Fonda was good but not memorable. There were times when this picture mentioned so many characters, probably too many. It may take a second viewing to remember, "which Zapatti was which?" After so many cross-references, one has to stop and think just to recap. The ending didn't have a lot of sting. It was built up for so long and then was a bit of a letdown. This was one of the few problems with the film. Since the movie wasn't billed as a "huge, blockbuster" big screen hit, it made some forget that this movie even existed. Pacino and Aiello were great but the film's lack of "splash" in the theaters may have accounted for no nominations. It was semi-successful in the home market, and viewers are still learning that this title is out there. Made in 1996, it still stands up today and will remain popular for many years to come.So, make yourself some lemon pudding (you'll see) and see this movie!
| 1
|
train_12727
|
Was this meant to be a comedy or a serious drama? This film starts with a light-hearted banter between three women. Fine. It moves into a conflict between the women when one of them meets a man. Fine. There are a few antics between them. Fine. But when the plot thickens and finally becomes black I started to wonder whether I had misinterpreted the first part of the movie. It continues in this vein for a while until, in the end, it tries to go back to the original light-hearted banter. But by now it's too late. It's hard to see why these women would still be talking to one another and the finale is unconvincing. Truly a lesson (for British filmmakers anyway) of how not to make films. Difficult to see how the producers ever convinced themselves this film would work. And the box office proved it to be a real flop, because I'd never heard of this film until this weekend (four years after its release).
| 0
|
train_16513
|
After watching some of HBO's great stuff - Band of Brothers, Rome, etc. - I must say I had pretty high expectations before watching the first episode of "True Blood". Jeez. Often the script seemed to be written by an 8-year-old, some parts are just horribly filmed, (The scene in which she "saves" Bill, I mean come on. She throws a chain at the guy and ow! it goes around his neck and it magically chokes him! That was pretty embarrassing if you want my opinion. Or a few moments before that scene, when she finds out that the couple is gone with Bill, ridiculous. She hears them plan their stuff, and like 5 seconds later, magic! The 3 of them are gone, and without any struggle or noise or anything!I mean the idea of the show seemed interesting, mysterious, intriguing, vampires co-existing with human in our modern society... but honestly I don't think they really wanted to make more of this than a petty soap show, that the average teen girl watches all the time but that nobody else cares about... Unfortunately, the script is written poorly, mediocre at best. It's shallow and extremely predictable. Often I thought that this was some kind of a joke or something. The actors deliver really unconvincing performances, if you want my opinion. They seem to take the show very lightly, as if it were some kind of a regular, low budget family TV show (well maybe thats what it is, if you take away the family part). The only actor that seemed somewhat good to me was Stephen Moyer in the role of Bill, considering the poorly written, extremely short replies he had to say "What are you..." "Can I give you a call sometime...", I think he did good in bringing out the somewhat mysteriously scary part of a vampire that anyone with a vampire role must have, actually. Anna Paquin was okay as well, but not more. But the guy, playing her brother though, jeez, he's horrible. The scene in which he gets arrested is just simply a shame to modern television. The acting is bad, the construction site looks fake to the bone, and the two other guys "Why is he getting arrested? Uh.. I dunno..." That was pretty embarrassing. Another thing that I think was completely missed was the way they presented Sookie's psychic powers. They make us hear what people think AND speak both at the same time and thats just wrong. Often it just seems unnecessarily chaotic, as if people's thought were some sort of an annoying radio channel, and that when she comes close to em she hits the right frequency level and has to hear everything that they think. And finally, the sex scenes are just plainly unnecessary and that vampire sex tape thing was just totally disgusting. Don't get me wrong - I wrote all these comments not because I thought the show was BAD, but because I was very disappointed. I expected quality stuff. I didn't think it was going to be like that. It's definitely not a GOOD show though. Mediocre at best.
| 0
|
train_6236
|
The plot intellect is about as light as feather down. But the advantage here is the boy and girl classic refusal we have become accustomed to in "The Gay Divorcee" and "Top Hat" is now absent. Instead of the typical accidental acquaintance, the dancing duo are the former lovers Bake Baker and Sherry Martin, who are still in love since their dancing days.Of course, being a 30s musical, there's the problems of misunderstood romance, classy courtship and the slight irritation of a sabotaged audition with bicarbonate soda has costing Ginger something rather special. And then in the grand tradition of dwindling finances, there's nothing better for Hollywood's best entertainers than put on a show.Delightful numbers from Irving Berlin are sprinkled throughout the show. Top hats and evening dresses are saved right until the end, which remains a refreshing change. Fred and Ginger are out again to charm the world...and charm the navy. Everyone and everything is once again just so enjoyable.Pure classic silliness at its best. But with Astaire and Rogers, we just know it's got to work.Rating: 8.25/10
| 1
|
train_3480
|
this is best comedy i ever seen! but not all can understand this you must be from Georgia to understand this amazing movie! :) overall one of best film i ever seen......... Vachtangi(Benjamin) and all supporting actors playing very very good but acting of Kote Daoshvili (Father Germogel) is for my opinion best acting in supporting role in history of films :)) in this movie playing many georgian stars like ipolite xvichia,sergo Zakariadze,sofiko chiaureli,verikoan djafaridze,Sesilia Takaishvili,Dodo Abashidze.... they all are Stars in Georgian cinematography :) plus in this movie is playing great Russian star Evgeni Leonov and of course Director of the film Georgy Danelia is one of the best...... i recommending this movie for everyone but remember you must know good Russian language to watch this movie
| 1
|
train_10559
|
I haven't written a review on IMDb for the longest time, however, I felt myself compelled to write this! When looking up this movie I found one particular review which urged people NOT to see this film. Do not pay any attention to this ignorant person! NOTHING is a fantastic film, full of laughs and above all... imagination! Aren't you sick and tired of being force fed the same old cycle of bubble-gum trash movies? Sometimes a film like NOTHING comes along and gives you something you have never seen before. I don't even care if you dislike (even hate) the movie, but no one has a right to discredit the film. IMDb has a monumental impact on reputations and no negative review should discredit the film like that. Just say you hate it and why you hate it... but don't try to tell people that they shouldn't watch it. We have minds of our own and will make up our own minds thank you.If my judgment is any good, I'd say that more people will enjoy this movie as opposed to those who hate it.Treat your mind to a bit of eye-candy! See NOTHING!
| 1
|
train_9169
|
I liked Timothy Dalton very much even though he was a bit young and too handsome for Mr R. but I thought Zelah Clarke too plump and short. This version however was very true to the novel and very well filmed. I have seen 4 versions, Orson Welles is still my favorite Mr R , though George C Scott did very well and it's a toss up between Joan Fontaine and Sussanah York, although they were both a bit too old for the role. I recently saw a brilliant TV version of Rebecca with Charles Dance and Emilia Fox. I would love to see those two do Jane Eyre.By the time I got to watching the Ciarin Hinds version, I think I was Jane Eyred out, but I will never tire of those first few minutes of hearing Joan Fontaine's voice narrate the opening of the first version I ever saw. I always want to go back and read the book again.
| 1
|
train_1420
|
In celebration of Earth Day Disney has released the film "Earth". Stopping far short of any strident message of gloom and doom, we are treated to some excellent footage of animals in their habitats without feeling too bad about ourselves.The stars of the show are a herd of elephants, a family of polar bears and a whale and its calf. The narrative begins at the North Pole and proceeds south until we reach the tropics, all the while being introduced to denizens of the various climatic zones traversed.Global warming is mentioned in while we view the wanderings of polar bear; note is made of the shrinking sea ice islands in more recent years. We never see the bears catch any seals, but the father's desperate search for food leads him to a dangerous solution.The aerial shots of caribou migrating across the tundra is one of the most spectacular wildlife shots I ever saw; it and another of migrating wildfowl are enough to reward the price of admission to see them on the big screen.One of the disappointments I felt was that otherwise terrific shots of great white sharks taking seals were filmed in slow motion. Never do you get the sense of one characteristic of wild animals; their incredible speed. The idea of slowing down the film to convey great quickness I think began with (or at least it's the first I recall seeing) the television show "Kung Fu" during the early Seventies.An interesting sidelight is that as the credits roll during the end some demonstrations of the cinematographic techniques employed are revealed. There are enough dramatic, humorous and instructive moments in this movie to make it a solid choice for nature buffs. Perhaps because of some selective editing (sparing us, as it were, from the grisly end of a prey-predator moment) and the fact that this footage had been released in 2007 and is available on DVD it is a solid film in its own right. And you can take your kids!Three stars.
| 1
|
train_8547
|
A lot of people hated this movie, but that I blame on two facts - 1 - They want it to be too much like the first couple of American Pie movies. and 2 - they are trying to take it too seriously.This one I found was the best one out of all six, and I absolutely love Dwight. The plot is predictable, I'll say that, but then what teen comedy ISN'T? Road Trip, Dirty Deeds etc etc, they are all incredibly predictable, but still goddamn funny! I say this is worth watching, I love it, I find it hilarious. Just don't watch it while comparing it to the first ones because it's nothing alike.After watching Naked Mile and this one, it became obvious that all the American Pie movies were about, and only about, the Stiflers. Which is FINE by me.Watch. Enjoy. Love. xD
| 1
|
train_18402
|
I went in expecting the movie to be completely dumb. With such a low expectation, any form of entertainment would be a pleasant surprise. The soundtrack was the best part of the movie, but poking fun at the nonsense that goes on in singles wards was also amusing.This said, there were many things about The Singles Ward that were completely annoying. The entire film was poorly dubbed and made watching mouths while listening to their voices very irritating. This lack of professionalism was surpassed only by the cameos of Mormon celebrities who have no business acting.This film will do well among Mormondom, especially in college communities where singles ward exist. However the conclusion will offer no hope for the poor losers who find themselves unmarried. (Only the pretty girls in the Singles Ward get married, the fat, ugly ones don't, but all the ugly men do) Ultimately we realize that the whole film was an advertisement for LDSSingles.com
| 0
|
train_19552
|
God this film was just so boring apart from the music which i really loved, i mean what was the point in actually making this movie please anyone who reads this review do not watch this film, it is a waste of time.Emraan can act but was really pathetic In this film, i am actually ashamed to be one of his fans especially in this movie, it was just really bad.Celina is just another pretty face with no lack of talent what so ever, she can't act at all, and there was no point of her being in this film, as for the other girl Radha she was okay i guess but could have done better.what a waste of time. please buy the great music and don't watch this movie.
| 0
|
train_22932
|
Horrible ending - and I can't believe Moore spent a year coming up with it. Smacks of L. Ron Hubbard and Dianetitcs, which Hubbard claimed to pen in just three weeks. This was actually disappointing enough for me to toss my discs from the first 3.5 years. Now, the first 1.5 hours were action packed, though absurd in the premise, and then it deteriorated into a slow, painful, sophomoric dissolution of the series. Unbelievable how slow and drawn out that last hour was. Were we to think more deeply? If I wanted a lesson in a-materialism, I would reread Daniel Quinn's Ishmael. Absurd to think 38K people would give up everything for a "fresh start". Absurd to throw in a disappearing Kara, and a reappearing Baltar and Six. Absurd to throw in the Mitochondrial Eve. Just absurd.
| 0
|
train_18748
|
Something very strange happens when you talk about Global Warming: science goes out the window and "belief" and "consensus" becomes the topic of discussion.It's because of that fact that I give a failing mark to Al Gore's documentary.Instead of promoting intelligent discussion, he kept the debate at the level of "belief" and "consensus".Of course, when you're trying to sell the world into spending trillions of dollars to "stop Global Warming" you may thing it's a problem to tell the scientific truth: we don't know how much of the current warming was caused by humans. Maybe none of it, maybe some of it, or maybe it has over-ceded the next Ice Age and we got really lucky not to have boiled the planet.But the fact remains that we don't know.so we're asked to "believe" in the "consensus". Never mind that any scientist that strays from the "consensus" is ostracized. Never mind that scientific inquiry is about straying from the consensus. Einstein didn't "believe" in the consensus, neither did Copernicus or Galileo.So why so much scorn placed on those very researchers who would advance the field by asking the tough questions? If Global Warming is so incontrovertible, surely a few people testing that theory can't be so threatening.What is going on here? That's the movie I was hoping Al Gore would have made. Istead, he chose to shore up his support with the true "believers" of the "consensus".Sad, really.
| 0
|
train_7651
|
An interesting TV movie based on true fact, betrayed by the description of one of the leading characters, that of a prisoner. Giovanni Ribisi plays his younger brother, who has the delicate mission of deciding if he will appeal to the courts for his brother's death penalty. But when he goes to visit him and enters Elias Koteas, the problem starts. It has nothing to do with Koteas' acting ability. He just looks like the version of a prisoner of proletarian roots according to "G.Q." magazine, with a language too sophisticated for someone who has spent most of his life behind bars. This realization came to me after meeting again an old friend, whom I had not seen for almost 15 years, which he spent in several Panamanian jails. The young man I used to know is gone, not only because he is older, but due to his exposure for a prolonged time to the penal system. There are jails and there are jails, one must say, but this one prisoner in "Shot In the Heart" is definitely out of this world.
| 1
|
train_14390
|
The problem I find with this title is that I am not sure if the director is trying to produce a documentary or movie. A blend of the two genres just doesn't work and that leaves the whole thing hung in the middle of nowhere. This is more so as the director has picked the most extremes of what is supposed to be happening around our everyday life making it an unconvincing documentary. If it is meant to be a thriller/drama this is too dull and monotonous. In either case, what is the moral or the message which the director is trying to convey to the audience? That around us there are people who ill-treat others who are willing to be ill-treated? That there are many crazy lunatics around us? So..........so what?
| 0
|
train_5088
|
I never had an inkling while watching the movie that it was meant for the idiot box. I always thought that this was some very good successful movie of the late 90's. But after I saw on the internet that this was meant for the TV, I was shocked because for a television film, it is absolutely fantastic!The thing that mostly concerned me was the length. I felt that the one on one battle scene should've been removed as it was completely unnecessary. Also, it began to drag towards the end as it seemed as if the adventure was never going to end. On the plus side, there is a strong, very interesting and captivating plot with magnificent performances by everyone. I just felt that Patrik Frayze looked a bit haggard. I also felt that Gogool, who looked dementing turned a bit stupid at some scenes.I was delighted by the beautiful landscapes of Africa. Also, the first half of the movie would have made me give this movie a 9. Still, its a great film for the television. 8 out of 10.
| 1
|
train_24064
|
Italian horror/suspense film about a wealthy English lord who cruises pubs and taverns for girls with red hair just like his recently deceased wife Evelyn. You know he must have really loved his wife, because he brings them to his home - a huge, rotting castle - and makes them disrobe and then tortures them, whips them, and kills them. The most bizarre aspect of this film for me was that somehow by the film's end, we see this guy played by Antonio De Teffe as the HERO of the film. Anyway, soon, under the advice of his playboy uncle Roberto Maldera, De Teffe settles down with a girl he meets at his uncle's party. She moves in and strange things begin to happen to De Teffe's fragile state of mind. He begins to see and hear his dead wife and finally, well, just look at the title if you are still curious. Also, family members and friends begin to die in the most brutal fashions. Poor Aunt Agatha(she looks like she might even be younger than De Teffe and they have her in a wheelchair and trying to look old) meets her fate in a foxy fashion. Another man is injected and then buried alive. And of course, there is a whole explanation as to why/how Evelyn did what she did. Director Emilio Miraglia does do some things fairly well: the settings in the film are well-suited for this film though trying to make us believe it is England is ludicrous at best. None of the actors look English. Many having dark black hair and Mediterranean complexions and wearing clothes an Englishman wouldn't be caught dead in. The cars drive on their wrong side of the road. But all that notwithstanding, the crypt scene was effectively shot and I liked the cheesy resolution too. And of course any film with the sultry, red-headed Erika Blanc is always a plus. There is a streak of sexual perversion; however, which I found somewhat appalling with the idea that torturing women was quite alright and healthy in order to relieve one of his mental demons. C'mon.
| 0
|
train_16553
|
if.... is the cinematic equivalent of Sgt. Pepper's: Revered by baby boomers as the pinnacle of creation, and viewed as rather a silly bit of business by preceding and subsequent generations. Now that the children of the middle classes the world over are seemingly super human due to the internet, and view the prospect of boarding school as a wonderful opportunity thanks to the Harry Potter books/films, the relevance of if.... couldn't be further from modern concern. In fact, many scenes appear so alien and exaggerated as to hint at an inspiration for Pink Floyd's The Wall.One should never hold personal bias against a film while reviewing, and the cemented date of this film aside, there are a few flaws which others have overlooked. Lindsay Anderson was known to be a fan of Luis Buñuel, on top of generally being too smart for his own good. And despite a straightforward narrative through the first and second acts, the latter portion of the piece it taken hostage by cod Buñuel surrealism and strained attempts at symbolism. Anderson wasn't capable of this feat due to his over-intelligent cynicism, failing to see that Buñuel was jovial in his work. I have not found a critic whom champions the 'Chaplain in a drawer', and am almost certain it still gets sideways looks from those who adore this film. The ending is not so much a concise punch to the established class/values system, as a wet slap on a moving target.The British public school system was firmly for the middle classes (the upper crust being educated at home by private tutors). And the modus operandi of if.... was to check the boxes of public school life which Lindsay believed had been unexplored in film, thereby savaging middle class pretense. Homosexuality, generational cutlery, cold showers et al. In reality, such issues HAD been covered in many other great British films, if.... merely brought them to the fore. The Browning Version was a more oblique damning of such pomp, to name but one.if.... is oddly quaint, and simply can not be viewed with modern (especially American) eyes. Kudos to Anderson for avoiding Mick and Kieth in favour of African chant, and a few brownie points for the latent homoerotic overtones. Points deducted for pretension, establishing characters who disappear, and inciting a glib revolution which came to naught.
| 0
|
train_9124
|
Bar some of the questionable acting (there musicians at the end of the day), this in the words of Quentin Tarrinno is "The best rock movie ever made...period"Think 8 Mile, but without the rapping - a young musician, trying to prove himself to the local community, whilst struggling to cope with a broken home and a rival band. Throw in the sex interest and the truly exceptional performances, this is the real 8 mile.Prince provides a solid performance, as does Morris Day and Jerome Benton. Decent script, good direction, great plot, and spectacular performances. Not forgetting the some of the best rock/pop/funk music you will ever hear.
| 1
|
train_22955
|
$25,000 Pyramid Clues: Deep Blue Sea. Tremors. Slither. Eight Legged Freaks.Pyramid Category: Movies that were funnier and more thrilling than Snakes on a Plane.Hell, with that definition I'd have to include the relatively harrowing journey of Ted and Elaine in Airplane! as superior to Snakes in both laughs and thrills.The sad truth is that this isn't even close to the mother of all unintentionally intentional funny snake movies: Anaconda! Besides the never to be seen again casting of JLo-Cube-O.Wilson-Stoltz-Wuhrer in the same flick, you had Jon Voight pulling off the all-time cinematic heist. His final scene alone represents everything SOAP tried and failed to do as a "so-ludicrous-it's-fun" movie.In the end, Snakes on a Plane is definitive proof that studio execs and fanboys make the worst collaborators possible. Every big scene had been discussed and dissected so much the last year, all that was left to amuse by opening night was the amount of fanboy flop-sweat that had to be mopped up at my theater. I heard more forced laughs here than at a studio taping for "According to Jim".
| 0
|
train_16106
|
This film is the worst film, but it ranks very high for me. It is how a slasher movie should be. It takes place at a university in which there only seems to be a handful of students. The teachers are dumber than a sack of hammers. It is filled with good Catholic priest, sexually repressed humor. Bad hair, bad clothes. The dialogue is so cliched it is hard to believe that I was able to predict lines in quotes. The slashings have some creativity and seem to revolve around stabbing people in the genitalia. A lack of continuity in the soundtrack and characters that deserve to die because they are so bad, I recommend this film for a fun time. Get a case of cheap beer and some friends, watch it and laugh.
| 0
|
train_817
|
I thought that ROTJ was clearly the best out of the three Star Wars movies. I find it surprising that ROTJ is considered the weakest installment in the Trilogy by many who have voted. To me it seemed like ROTJ was the best because it had the most profound plot, the most suspense, surprises, most emotional,(especially the ending) and definitely the most episodic movie. I personally like the Empire Strikes Back a lot also but I think it is slightly less good than than ROTJ since it was slower-moving, was not as episodic, and I just did not feel as much suspense or emotion as I did with the third movie.It also seems like to me that after reading these surprising reviews that the reasons people cited for ROTJ being an inferior film to the other two are just plain ludicrous and are insignificant reasons compared to the sheer excellence of the film as a whole. I have heard many strange reasons such as: a) Because Yoda died b) Because Bobba Fett died c) Because small Ewoks defeated a band of stormtroopers d) Because Darth Vader was revealedI would like to debunk each of these reasons because I believe that they miss the point completely. First off, WHO CARES if Bobba Fett died??? If George Lucas wanted him to die then he wanted him to die. Don't get me wrong I am fan of Bobba Fett but he made a few cameo appearances and it was not Lucas' intention to make him a central character in the films that Star Wars fans made him out to be. His name was not even mentioned anywhere in the movie... You had to go to the credits to find out Bobba Fett's name!!! Judging ROTJ because a minor character died is a bit much I think... Secondly, many fans did not like Yoda dying. Sure, it was a momentous period in the movie. I was not happy to see him die either but it makes the movie more realistic. All the good guys can't stay alive in a realistic movie, you know. Otherwise if ALL the good guys lived and ALL the bad guys died this movie would have been tantamount to a cheesy Saturday morning cartoon. Another aspect to this point about people not liking Yoda's death.. Well, nobody complained when Darth Vader struck down Obi Wan Kenobi in A New Hope. (Many consider A New Hope to be the best of the Trilogy) Why was Obi Wan's death okay but Yoda's not... hmmmmmmmmmmmm.... Another reason I just can not believe was even stated was because people found cute Ewoks overpowering stormtroopers to be impossible. That is utterly ridiculous!! I can not believe this one!! First off, the Ewoks are in their native planet Endor so they are cognizant of their home terrain since they live there. If you watch the movie carefully many of the tactics the Ewoks used in defeating the stormtroopers was through excellent use of their home field advantage. (Since you lived in the forest all your life I hope you would have learned to use it to your advantage) They had swinging vines, ropes, logs set up to trip those walkers, and other traps. The stormtroopers were highly disadvantaged because they were outnumbered and not aware of the advantages of the forest. The only thing they had was their blasters. To add, it was not like the Ewoks were battling the stormtroopers themselves, they were heavily assisted by the band of rebels in that conquest. I thought that if the stormtroopers were to have defeated a combination of the Star Wars heros, the band of rebels, as well as the huge clan of Ewoks with great familiarity of their home terrain, that would have been a great upset. Lastly, if this scene was still unbelievable to you.. How about in Empire Strikes Back or in A New Hope where there were SEVERAL scenes of a group consisting of just Han Solo, Chewbacca, and the Princess, being shot at by like ten stormtroopers and all their blasters missed while the heros were in full view!! And not only that, the heroes , of course, always hit the Stormtroopers with their blasters. The troopers must have VERY, VERY bad aim then! At least in Empire Strikes Back, the Battle of Endor was much more believable since you had two armies pitted each other not 3 heroes against a legion of stormtroopers. Don't believe me? Check out the battle at Cloud City when our heroes were escaping Lando's base. Or when our heros were rescuing Princess Leia and being shot at (somehow they missed)as Han Solo and Luke were trying to exit the Death Star.The last reason that I care to discuss (others are just too plain ridiculous for me to spend my time here.) is that people did not like Darth Vader being revealed! Well, in many ways that was a major part of the plot in the movie. Luke was trying to find whether or not Darth Vader was his father, Annakin Skywalker. It would have been disappointing if the movie had ended without Luke getting to see his father's face because it made it complete. By Annakin's revelation it symbolized the transition Darth Vader underwent from being possessed by the dark side (in his helmet) and to the good person he was Annakin Skywalker (by removing the helmet). The point is that Annakin died converted to the light side again and that is what the meaning of the helmet removal scene was about. In fact, that's is what I would have done in that scene too if I were Luke's father...Isn't that what you would have done if you wanted to see your son with your own eyes before you died and not in a mechanized helmet?On another note, I think a subconscious or conscious expectation among most people is that the sequel MUST be worse (even if it is better) that preceding movies is another reason that ROTJ does not get as many accolades as it deserves. I never go into a film with that deception in mind, I always try to go into a film with the attitude that "Well, it might be better or worse that the original .. But I can not know for sure.. Let's see." That way I go with an open mind and do not dupe myself into thinking that a clearly superior film is not as good as it really was.I am not sure who criticizes these movies but, I have asked many college students and adults about which is their favorite Star Wars movie and they all tell me (except for one person that said that A New Hope was their favorite) that it is ROTJ. I believe that the results on these polls are appalling and quite misleading.Bottom line, the Return of the Jedi was the best of the Trilogy. This movie was the only one of the three that kept me riveted all throughout its 135 minutes. There was not a moment of boredom because each scene was either suspenseful, exciting, surprising, or all of the above. For example, the emotional light saber battle between Luke and his father in ROTJ was better than the one in the Empire Strikes Back any day!!!Finally, I hope people go see the Phantom Menace with an open mind because if fans start looking for nitpicky, insignificant details (or see it as "just another sequel") to trash the movie such as "This movie stinks because Luke is not in it!" then this meritorious film will become another spectacular movie that will be the subject of derision like ROTJ suffered unfortunately.
| 1
|
train_15398
|
Wowwwwww, about an hour ago I finally finished watching this terrible movie!!! I wanted to turn it off within the first like 10 minutes but I figured I'd give it a chance because it just hadddd to get better. Or at least have some redeeming qualities, like I figured at the very least it would be a make you think type movie, or like really intelligent, or very well filmed or something...Needless to say, that was not the case and I wasted about an hour and a half of my life. Im not even going to get into why its terrible because its a waste of my time to explain that this "may contain spoilers"...IMDb, you should calm down on the spoilers thing and pay more attention to making sure that the people who rate the movies and comment are not paid to write good reviews or involved somehow in the movie or anything else like that. I thought it would be humorous after this terrible film to come see hoe bad the rating would be and I was very very shocked to see the fairly high ratings...all the ratings with about 7-10 stars clearly must be about some COMPLETELY DIFFERENT movie... Im still a big IMDb fan, but seriously rethink this rating process because this movie should be rated no higher than maaaybbbeee like a 3.
| 0
|
train_21003
|
with all the European studios involved in this one, you would think you'd at least get some pretty photography; but the local color is kept to a minimum.Irritation #1 is Mira Sorvino using a Russian accent in order to play a Spanish cop - WTF? The story is hopelessly confused. There's a supposed romantic back story that is intentionally confused - is she or isn't she a lesbian? - serving no purpose whatsoever. The cops in the movie are the most stupid to have graced a serial killer film in a long time. There seems to be some message about the mid-'30s Spanish Civil War But since pretty much everybody involved in that is dead, one doesn't see the point in it.Despite the bull-fighting backdrop of part of the narrative (which part? who can tell), you never even get a good look at a bull fight. Earnest Hemingway would have punched the director in the nose - with my blessings.
| 0
|
train_1657
|
And that goes especially for lawyers & cops. Puerto Rico,which boasts of a small,but potent film production firm,brings this multi layered tale of corruption,due to the on going drug cartel that starts in South America,makes a pit stop on the island commonwealth,and then northbound into North America. Steven Bauer,the most recognizable face on screen here,leads a cast of top notch actors,in a story of "can you spot the only respectable face in the crowd?". Ricardo Mendez Matta moves up from directing mainly action adventure fare for American television,in a screenplay written by Matta,along with Poli Marichal. The rest of the cast (Elpidia Carrillo,Magda Rivera,Jose Herredia,Luz Maria Randon,to mention a few)turn in oh so fine roles,in a film that will keep you wondering "is there any respectable characters here?". Spoken in Spanish with English subtitles. Rated 'R' by the MPAA,this film contains outbursts of vulgar language,brief flashes of nudity,adult content & violence,some of which is quite lurid.
| 1
|
train_5261
|
Do you like really inventive comedy or do you love "the wedding crashers", if the answer is the latter stop reading now. I can't believe this movie is not higher rated. Basically Meadows plays a character not unlike Austin Powers.There are so many inventive moments in this gagorama. From crudity - Leon playing with himself on the porch, the ex boyfriend tricked into eating . . Oh well. To inspired lunacy- clown sex , the Broadway routine, the voice over. Meadows is great as the childish, but very sweet natured Leon. Some great lines "don't blame the wang" "freaky deaky sex world" too many. . . Why this movie wasn't huge is a mystery. Great comedy.
| 1
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.