id
stringlengths 7
11
| text
stringlengths 52
10.2k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|---|
train_19384
|
You have to respect this movie. It may be "just a dumb kid's movie" but it's the #1 most frequently requested film title in online movie forums, requested by people who remember the story but can't remember the title. Therefore what follows is a much-needed, detailed plot description, since I haven't been able to find such a description anywhere else on the Internet.A typical 2-story house is shown in suburbia. 7-year-old Bridget narrates about suspecting something is going on since she and her 11-year-old brother Andrew are getting presents from their parents for no apparent reason. Bridget's present is a stuffed penguin that she immediately names Sweet William. Bridget describes her relatives: Aunt Ruth, a bossy nurse taking care of grandmother, Grams the hugging grandmother who makes dolls out of socks, and her brother Andrew, who's into electronics and is grumpy. Grams accidentally hangs up on the lieutenant-governor, which indicates she's getting in the way while living with the family. The two children eat breakfast while the adults discuss moving Grams to a retirement home. Bridget makes an awful-looking pancake sandwich containing cereal, eggs, bacon, strawberries, and syrup, as Andrew looks on incredulously. The two kids then discuss Grams, and Andrew says bluntly that Grams is being "put out to pasture." Bridget talks with Grams in the attic, has a play tea party with Sweet William in her bedroom, then a living doll unexpectedly pops out of her bedroom closet mirror.Bridget and the living doll become acquainted. The curly-haired living female doll is named Huggins and lives in Huggaland. Bridget gives Huggins a baseball cap from Andrew's room. Huggins hides under some laundry when Bridget's mother comes by, then the mother throws the laundry into the washing machine with Huggins in it. Bridget rescues Huggins and dries her off with a hair drier. They discuss the problem with Grams getting old and having to move away, Huggins says Bridget could talk to the bookworm in Huggaland about it, since he knows everything. They step through the mirror to visit Huggaland, but one of Bridget's tennis shoes becomes lodged in the mirror.Rather than walk around with one shoe, Bridget goes without shoes in Huggaland. They immediately meet Hugsy, a curly-haired living boy doll in Huggaland. Huggins gives Hugsy the baseball cap. They also meet Tickles, Bubbles, Impkins, and Tweaker, and all the dolls sing a song while sitting on a bridge. Hugsy takes Bridget and Huggins in his hugwagon to see the bookworm, who lives atop a stack of giant books. The bookworm consults "the old encyclopedia" and finds that old age can be cured by eating the fruit of the "youngberry tree." However, only one such tree exists, and it's in the country of Shrugs, ruled by the mad queen of quartz. The only way to travel to Shrugs is to jump down a deep hole that is located inside a nearby giant book.Bridget and the two dolls gulp three times, jump down the hole, and tumble out. Soon they walk down a sideways sidewalk, hear the sea of glass breaking, and fall off the sidewalk when the sideways gravity ends. They encounter "the hairy behemoth," which looks like a mastodon, has four tusks, and breathes fire out its trunk. But Hugsy boldly goes over and hugs the behemoth, who thereby turns into a baby elephant whose name is Hodgepodge. Hodgepodge had been under a spell by the queen, and owes Hugsy a favor, so they all ride on Hodgepodge's back to the castle. They enter the castle, are surrounded by troll-like beings, the queen (Queen Admira) comes, and Bridget asks for a few youngberries. The queen refuses, then eats one for herself, and brags about her own youthful good looks while looking in a hand mirror. Hodgepodge faints when the queen says he should be "digested." The queen is upset when Bridget mentions that wicked witches should have warts, so the queen freezes Bridget and orders the three others to be taken to the dungeon. But the queen carelessly leaves the key to the youngberry tree's dome by the lock to the dome-lifting apparatus.Hodgepodge wakes up in the dungeon and uses his "noodle" (trunk) to pull the jail's door down, thereby freeing himself and the two dolls with him. They find Bridget standing petrified, the dolls hug her, which causes Bridget to be revived. Before they flee, Bridget finds the left-behind key to the youngberry tree dome, lifts the dome off, and they pick some glowing youngberries and put them in a jar. The queen catches them, but the queen's arm is trapped under the descending dome while reaching for the key that Bridget left on the ground. The queen suddenly turns very old since she is deprived of the youth-giving berries, and appears to die. Soon Bridget steps back through the mirror into her bedroom but trips on the bottom of the mirror, spilling the berries onto her floor, and the berries quickly vanish into smoke, one by one. Her mother calls for her and Andrew to say goodbye to Grams, who is leaving for a retirement home. Andrew drops his usual grumpy, standoffish facade and hugs Grams, telling her he loves her and that he doesn't want her to go away. Their father is moved, and decides to keep Grams there after all, and everybody hugs and cries, including Aunt Ruthie, who had been the main person pressuring Grams to move out.Andrew asks Bridget for his St. Louis Cardinals cap, Bridget starts to explain how she gave it to Huggins of Huggaland, but Andrew doesn't want to listen to what he believes are her fantasy stories, so he turns around to look for it in her bedroom. One of the dolls secretly hands the cap back through the mirror to Bridget, Bridget puts the cap on Andrew's head, Andrew is mystified, and leaves her bedroom without saying anything. Bridget cheerfully waves at the mirror.
| 0
|
train_11881
|
Every great gangster movie has under-currents of human drama. Don't expect an emotional story of guilt, retribution and despair from "Scarface". This is a tale of ferocious greed, corruption, and power. The darker side of the fabled "American Dream".Anybody complaining about the "cheesiness" of this film is missing the point. The superficial characters, cheesy music, and dated fashions further fuel the criticism of this life of diabolical excess. Nothing in the lives of these characters really matter, not on any human level at least. In fact the film practically borderlines satire, ironic considering all the gangsta rappers that were positively inspired by the lifestyle of Tony Montana.This isn't Brian DePalma's strongest directorial effort, it is occasionally excellent and well-handled (particularly the memorable finale), but frequently sinks to sloppy and misled. Thankfully, it is supported by a very strong script by Oliver Stone (probably good therapy for him, considering the coke habit he was tackling at the time). The themes are consistent, with the focus primarily on the life of Tony Montana, and the evolution of his character as he is consumed by greed and power. The dialogue is also excellent, see-sawing comfortably between humour and drama. There are many stand-out lines, which have since wormed their way into popular culture in one form or another.The cast help make it what it is as well, but this is really Pacino's film. One of his earlier less subtle performances (something much more common from him nowadays), this is a world entirely separate from Michael Corleone and Frank Serpico. Yet he is as watchable here as ever, in very entertaining (and intentionally over-the-top) form. It is hard to imagine another Tony Montana after seeing this film, in possibly one of the most mimicked performances ever. Pfeiffer stood out as dull and uncomfortable on first viewing, but I've come to realize how she plays out the part of the bored little wife. Not an exceptional effort, but unfairly misjudged. The supporting players are very good too, particularly Paul Shenar as the suave Alejandro Sosa.Powerful, occasionally humorous, sometimes shocking, and continually controversial. "Scarface" is one of the films of the eighties (whatever that might mean to you). An essential and accessible gangster flick, and a pop-culture landmark. 9/10
| 1
|
train_16796
|
I was going to say this was the worst gay-themed film I've ever seen, but I can honestly say this is the worst film if any genre I've ever seen.You know you're in trouble when a movie starts with a "personal note" from the Director, asking for the audience's "understanding" for the "many challenges" facing a first-time Director. The audio track is so bad in many scenes it's almost impossible to follow the dialogue, and this from a DVD version. Bad lighting, bad sets, bad photography, poor script, generally bad acting all add up to make this "film" unwatchable. I did make it through to the bad ending after several attempts, and immediately gave away the DVD I foolishly purchased. I'm sure there are many challenges facing a first-time Director. But, don't try to palm off this lame attempt as a finished product. I see from IMDb details that this was not only the first Directing attempt of Richard Natale, but also the only. That's the one positive thing I can say about this alleged "movie".
| 0
|
train_4577
|
This movie is so good I could watch it all day long! Mary-Kate and Ashley were robbed at Oscar time!! If I got to be one of the actors I would be so excited!!! I can't wait for the new Charlie's Angels movie starring Mary-Kate and Ashley.
| 1
|
train_8730
|
Many of the American people would say...What??? to my opening comment. Yes I know that my comparison is without doubts an insult for the fans of the Master Akira Kurosawa, but if you analyze this movie, my comment is right. We have the peasant who goes to the town searching for help against a band of grasshoppers who wants to steal the harvest of the village. The great difference is the way that the story takes. Our samurais, a band of circus performers as in the original are a very complex mixture of personalities but at the end are what the village needs, HEROES. Please watch again this incredible movie (the Seven Samurai, obviously) and find another movies who has stolen the story and tried to get the same magic effect than the Masterpiece of Akira Kurosawa. A tip is The 13th Warrior with Antonio Banderas, Michael Crichton copied the story to wrote his Best seller's, but he didn't found the third foot of the cat.
| 1
|
train_21906
|
Houseboat Horror is a great title for this film. It's absolutely spot-on, and therefore the only aspect of the film for which I can give 10 out of 10. There are houseboats, there is horror, there's even horror that takes place on houseboats. But if there were ever a tagline for the film poster, it would surely be 'Something shonky this way comes...' for Houseboat Horror is easily the worst Australian horror film I've ever seen, not to mention one of the worst horror films I've ever seen, and a fairly atrocious attempt at film-making in general. The good news is, it's so bloody awful, it sails straight through the zone of viewer contempt into the wonderful world of unintentional hilarity. It's worth watching *because* it's bloody awful.The category of 'worst' comes not from the storyline, for the simple reason that there actually is one: a record producer, a film crew and a rock band drive up to the mystifyingly-named Lake Infinity, a picturesque rural retreat somewhere in Victoria (in reality Lake Eildon) to shoot a music video. Someone isn't especially happy to see them there and, possibly in an attempt to do the audience a favour, starts picking them off one by one with a very sharp knife. Even more mystifying is how long it takes the survivors to actually notice this, On the surface, it looks like a very bog-standard B-movie slasher. You've got highly-annoying youths, intolerant elders, creepy locals (one of whom, a petrol station attendant, would easily win a gurning competition), and let's face it, my description of the murderer could easily be Jason Voorhees. Ah, but if only the acting and production values were anywhere near as good as the comparative masterpiece that was Friday The 13th Part VII. Unfortunately, Houseboat Horror is completely devoid of both these things.But in the end, this only makes what you do get so ridiculous and amusing. Fans of one-time 'Late Show' and 'Get This' member Tony Martin will already be aware of some of the real dialogue gems ('Check out the view...you'll bar up!'), while the actual song to accompany the music video is so bad it has to be heard to be believed - I can't help wondering if writer/director Ollie Wood hoped it would actually become a hit. The horror element is comparable I think to B-slashers of the genre and particularly of the period, but there were times when I couldn't help imagining someone biting into a hamburger off-screen and seeing a volley of tomato sauce sprayed at the wall on-screen.Indeed, if you've been listening to Tony Martin recommending this film as hilarious rubbish like myself, I don't think you'll be disappointed. Any fans of 'so-bad-it's-good' horror should not pass up the opportunity. Whether you'll 'bar up' or not though is another matter. If, on the other hand, you are in search of genuine excellence in the Australian horror genre, get yourself a copy of the incomparable 'Long Weekend' and don't look back.
| 0
|
train_13363
|
I've come to realise from watching Euro horror, especially films made by cult luminary Jess Franco, that you can't expect a plot that makes much sense. However, Franco has gone overboard with this film; and despite a surreal atmosphere, and the film's reputation as one of the director's best - Succubus is unfortunately is a truly awful film. I've got to admit that I saw the American cut version, which runs at about 76 minutes; but unless it was just the logic that was cut, I'm sure the longer European version is just as boring. The plot has something to do with a woman marauding around; practicing S&M and talking rubbish, and it's all really boring. There's no gore and the sex is dull, and most of the runtime is taken up by boring dialogue and despite the fact that this is a short film; I had difficulty making it all the way to the end. I have to say that the locations look good and Franco has done a good job of using his surreal atmosphere; but the positive elements end there. Jess Franco is definitely a talented director that has made some classic trash films - but this looks like it was one he made for the money, and overall I recommend skipping it and seeing some of the director's more interesting works.
| 0
|
train_13477
|
"Fever Pitch" isn't a bad film; it's a terrible film.Is it possible American movie audiences and critics are so numbed and lobotomized by the excrement that Hollywood churns out that they'll praise to the skies even a mediocre film with barely any laughs? That's the only reason I can think of why this horrible romantic comedy (and I use that term loosely because there's nothing funny in this film) is getting good reviews.I sat through this film stunned that screenwriters Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel would even for an instant think their script was funny.The brilliant Nick Hornby usually translates well to film. He adapted "Fever Pitch" for a British film starring Colin Firth and Ruth Gemmell in 1997; Peter Hedges found Hornby's voice for "About a Boy" (2002) and when "High Fidelity" was Americanized for a movie in 2000, writers D.V. DeVincentis, Steve Pink, John Cusack and Scott Rosenberg didn't go wrong because they kept the essence of Hornby's wit and humor. They made one of the best films of that year.So why does the American version of "Fever Pitch" go so painfully awry? The British version wasn't a masterpiece, but it was charming, funny, unexpected and gave us two characters we could like, respect and understand.But Ganz and Mandel have excised everything funny in Hornby's work. In Americanizing the story, they've butchered it, removing all that was good and unique about Hornby's work and replacing it with conventional drivel.They've transformed a funny story into a formulaic romantic comedy, never once veering from the wretched formula. Lindsey (Drew Barrymore) has three girlfriends, each of whom has a distinct function. One's overweight, the second's cynical and ambitious, and the third's a romantic. Want to guess how many male friends Ben (Jimmy Fallon) has?What made "High Fidelity" such fun was not only a good leading man and lady, but engaging supporting characters. In this "Fever Pitch," the six supporting friends do or say nothing especially funny. They're so insignificant, they're not even decorative. The only reason they're in the film is because the formula demands it. Poor Ione Skye winds up as one Lindsey's pals in a thankless role. The lovely Skye must have been wishing Lloyd Dobler would swoop in and take her away. Come to think of it, Cusack would've made an excellent Ben. Of course, Cusack is too smart to attach himself to such an utterly tedious script.There isn't a single, solitary moment in this film that seems original or unforced. Every plot turn is predictable, every lame joke telegraphed. Ganz and Mandel labor for laughs. The first 45 minutes are so excruciatingly slow, you wonder if these chaps realized they were writing a comedy. You can mark the plot turns in this film by your watch. It's almost as if Ganz and Mandel penned this with some screen writing guru's formula pasted on the wall. When they got to a certain page, they looked up at the formula and said, "OK, the guru says this has to happen now." And, presto!Directors Bobby and Peter Farrelly don't help the film any. They have no concept how to introduce their story and characters (they hand over the V.O. narration not to the protagonist, but to another guy who sits behind Ben at Fenway Park). Thanks to some extremely clunky writing, we have to watch Barrymore and Fallon stumble through their unfunny initial meetings.Barrymore does cute and adorable better than most. She's as good at it as Goldie Hawn in her heyday. But even her cuteness can't save this extraordinarily awful film. She tries hard to wring some energy and humor out of this story. About 30 minutes into the film, Lindsey tells Ben, "You're funny." The only explanation for her remark is that it was in the script. For Fallon's Ben never says anything even remotely funny. Fallon is neither witty nor funny; when he does comedy, he overacts.Fallon was never any good on "Saturday Night Live." He was quite possibly the least funny person on that show. Remember that lame sketch about a radio DJ who did all the voices? The only reason "Weekend Update" worked occasionally was because Fallon's cohort, Tina Fey, knows a thing or two about comedy.Actors who think they're funny and behave that way rarely, if ever, are actually funny. That's true of Fallon. He thinks he's hysterically funny when he barely raises a chuckle. His stuttering, unsure-of-himself shtick didn't work on the small screen; it's lousier on the big screen.Unfortunately for Fallon, his role in this picture also requires a few dramatic moments. If you thought his comedy was bad, wait till you get a load of his dramatic stuff. Two scenes in particular - the first in a park, the second in front of Ben's school - are painful to watch. The scenes require an actor with a smidgen of dramatic ability, but Fallon has neither the knowledge nor the ability to make them work. His range of emotions doesn't even run the gamut from A to B.Ben has no personality or depth. Often, he comes across as an oaf. And not a lovable one at that. It boggles the mind what Lindsey would find attractive about him. Compare Fallon's performance to Firth's in the British version, and you'll understand how terribly flat, unfunny and forced Fallon's Ben is and how wrong he is for this role. Watching Fallon in "Fever Pitch" makes one long for the dramatic depth and comedic nuance of Ashton Kutcher!Just as "High Fidelity" did, an Americanized "Fever Pitch" could've worked brilliantly. It just needed better writers, more competent directors and, most definitely, a stronger, funnier, smarter leading man. Do yourself a huge favor: Avoid this rotten film; rent the 1997 British version and read Hornby's book, instead.
| 0
|
train_9632
|
The concept of having Laurel & Hardy this time in the role of chimney sweepers works out surprisingly hilarious. It guarantees some funny situations and silly antics, from especially Stan Laurel of course as usual.The movie also has a subplot with a nutty professor who is working on a rejuvenation formula. It doesn't really sound like a logical mix of story lines and incoherent but both plot lines blend in perfectly toward the memorable ending. It's still a bit weird but its funny nevertheless, so it works for the movie.The supporting cast of the movie is surprising good. Sam Adams is great as the stereotypical butler and Lucien Littlefield goes deliciously over-the-top as the nutty professor.The movie is filled with some excellent timed and hilarious constructed sequences, which are all quite predictable but become hilarious to watch nevertheless thanks to the way they are all executed. It all helps to make "Dirty Work" to be one of the better Laurel & Hardy shorts.8/10
| 1
|
train_15775
|
DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE IF YOU LOVED THE CLASSICS SUCH AS TOM WOPAT, JOHN SCHNEIDER, CATHERINE BACH, SORRELL BOOKE, JAMES BEST, DENVER PYLE, SONNY SHROYER, AND BEN JONES! THIS MOVIE WILL DISSAPPOINT YOU BADLY! First of all, this movie starts out with Bo and Luke running moonshine for Jesse. Bo and Luke would not do that ever on the real series! This movie portrays unimaginable characters doing things that never would have happened in the series. In the series, Uncle Jesse was honest, and law-abiding. In this movie, he is a criminal who is making moonshine and smoking weed with the governor of Georgia. Plus, if this was an extension adding on to the Dukes of Hazzard Reunion! and the Dukes of Hazzard in Hollywood, I have one question: HOW COULD UNCLE JESSE BE MAKING MOONSHINE WHEN HE DIED BEFORE THE DUKES OF HAZZARD IN Hollywood MOVIE? AND HOW IS BOSS HOGG ALIVE WHEN HE DIED BEFORE THE REUNION MOVIE IN 1997! MOVIE AND ROSCO RAN HAZZARD? IT SEEMS MAGICAL THAT THESE CHARACTERS CAME BACK TO LIFE, WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN DEAD FOR 11 AND 8 YEARS? If Hollywood really wanted to make a good movie, they should have brought back James Best, John Schneider, Tom Wopat, Ben Jones, and Catherine Bach like they did in 1997 and 2000 and made a family friendly movie with the living original characters that made the show what it was and still is compared to this disgusting, disgraced movie! If you want to see good Dukes movies, either buy the original series, or go out to walmart.com and buy the DVD set of 2 that includes the Reunion, and Dukes of Hazzard in Hollywood movies! They both star the original cast, and are family friendly! Don't waste your time on a movie that isn't worth the CD it's written on!
| 0
|
train_1221
|
For the longest time, I liked this movie better than the original Care Bears movie. Well last summer, I watched them both together and decided I was wrong. The first one is a better Care Bears movie (as you may have guessed if you read my review for it). This one isn't a BAD movie, it's just... VERY STRANGE.Well first of all, as a few people have mentioned, it completely disavows any knowledge of the first movie. I can't think of another sequel that contradicts the original so blatantly (especially with the genders of some characters and how they all met). When I was little and watching this, I was quite a bit confused and distraught. I felt the same way watching it as an adult!On to the reasons why the movie is actually pretty good (IF you disassociate it from the first movie). I can't think of another movie for little kids with a DEMON as it's villan! Now I am not for a minute suggesting that evil demons who want to steal the souls of campers and Care Bears are good, I just find it cool that there's a SUPREMELY EVIL BEING in a movie for little kids! It's like that bizzare "Santa Clause vs. Satan" movie from Mexico you hear about sometimes. Anyhow, the demon's name is Darkheart and he wants this chick to help him get the Care Bears in return for him giving her special powers. Very dark for a kiddy flick eh? And did I mention that Darkheart appears to the girl most often as a WHINEY VOICED 10 YEAR OLD BOY??? Freaky! Meanwhile some other kids are in Care-a-Lot looking after BABY CARE BEARS! Oh, man! Demons and baby Care Bears IN THE SAME MOVIE!!!!!Needless to say, everything gets cleared up in the end (but not before we get to see Darkheart trap the Care Bears' souls in this scary chandelere thing in one [surprisingly] deeply disturbing scene). But I am left with the question of wether this movie has found the cult audience it so richly deserves. I might just watch it again myself.
| 1
|
train_12927
|
> What a dud. It began with some promise, then became unfocused and > wandered. John Cusack's Cajun accent was laughable, Bridget Fonda's role > existed only to get a skirt into the film, and Pacino did Pacino. His entire > generation of actors -- Nicholson, Hackman, Caine, Hoffman -- have developed > a standard performance that each can deliver effortlessly (or, less > charitably, "mail in") in their paycheck films. This was > one. >
| 0
|
train_14198
|
Lynch. The man has some really great stuff! He knows how to disturb us, then reward us by getting us think in different ways. This, however, is altogether different. Dumbland's reward is 1% absurd comedy, earned by enduring 99% stupidity. I may have laughed once, but somewhere around episode 4 I just started watching on fast-forward. Didn't miss a thing. I felt relieved when it ended, and that's part of the point with this series. It's an annoying series about annoying characters in annoying situations, rounded out with annoying animation, voices and sound. But recognizing this and its other absurdist qualities still fails to make Dumbland worthwhile.
| 0
|
train_16844
|
If you hit your head with a shovel, write the script with your feet, you may come close to the intelligence level of this movie. There is nothing in this movie that hasn't been done a thousand times in other gangster flicks and done much better. Those who think "Scarface" was some kind of hero to be looked up to or saw "Goodfellas", "Menace II Society" or "Dead Presidents" and thought MMM "That's the life for me!" will like this movie. I thought I'd give the movie a chance, since the premise was perfect for a prequel. I should have known better after seeing Mario Van Peebles and Sean Combs were involved. Anyone above a 4th grade education, see the original with Pacino, a real actor, and be satisfied.
| 0
|
train_14275
|
Based on the average short story by horror writer Stephen King about so called 'Sleepwalkers' ancient and immortal cat-like creatures that suck the life out of virgins in order that this energy may sustain them They have supernatural abilities- they can make themselves 'dim' which means they become invisible and can create subliminal mirages to fool people.They have been fleeing humans for century's we are told and have one by one been picked off till there are only two left.The film starts when a beautiful mother and her son arrive in a sleepy town, they are the last of the sleepwalkers and they are on the prowl for virgins to feed on. The mother sends her son out to enrol at the local high school so he can find a virgin, he does (Madchen Amick) and proceeds to try to get her alone so he can suck her dry. It is not made clear why the mother cannot seek out virgins herself- it would make things easier one would imagine as teenage boys are much more apt to follow a older beautiful woman to a secluded area than a teen girl follow a teen boy. However his plans are thwarted as the girl fights back, jabbing a pencil in to his ear. The police are called and the hunt is on!. The son is sick from his injuries and so the mother goes on the rampage killing cops left and right in her hunt for the girl who hurt her son and spouting some painfully unfunny one liners amidst the gore. Finally the girl kills the mother- end of movie. This movie is rubbish!. The acting is variable, from the average Brian Krause to the excellent Alice Krige. The special effects are average,and showcase some early computer effects which is mildly interesting as it shows how far such things have progressed in such a short time. The direction is muddled and the film falls in to camp in places. The director seems unsure whether we are supposed to fear the sleepwalkers or sympathise with them and when in doubt allows the film to become hysterical. Stephen King makes a mildly amusing cameo as an annoying gardener as does Mark Hamill, as a puzzled cop. Alice Krige seems to shoulder the film, her character is given depth and she gives an indication of what the film could have been with a better screenplay and better direction.
| 0
|
train_4923
|
"Panic In The Streets" is an exciting and atmospheric thriller in which director Elia Kazan achieved a great sense of realism by shooting the movie in New Orleans, using a number of local people to fill various roles and making intelligent use of improvisation. As a result, the characters and dialogue both seem very natural and believable. An important deadline which has to be met in order to avoid a disaster, provides the story with its great sense of urgency and pace and the problems which delay the necessary action from being taken, then increase the tension to a high level.Following a dispute between the participants in a card game, a man called Kochak (Lewis Charles) is shot and his body is dumped in the dock area. When the body is found and the coroner identifies the presence of a virus, U.S. Public Health official Dr Clinton Reed (Richard Widmark) is called in and his examination confirms the presence of pneumonic plague. Reed insists that all known contacts of the dead man must be inoculated without delay because the very infectious nature of the disease means that without such action, anyone infected could be expected to die within days.As the identity of the dead man is unknown, the task of finding his contacts is expected to be difficult and this situation is not helped when city officials and the Police Commissioner are not fully convinced by Reed's briefing. They doubt that the threat to the public is potentially as serious as he claims it is and their initial lack of commitment is just the first of a series of obstacles which prevent action from being taken urgently. The investigation that follows is hampered by a lack of cooperation from the immigrant community, a group of seamen, the proprietor of a restaurant and also some illegal immigrants before the man's identity and his contacts are eventually found.Kochak, an illegal immigrant, had been in a gang with Blackie (Jack Palance), Raymond Fitch (Zero Mostel) and Vince Poldi (Tommy Cook) and when gang leader Blackie becomes aware of the ongoing police investigation, he presumes that Kochak must've smuggled something very valuable into the country. As Kochak and Poldi were related, Blackie assumes that Poldi must know something about this and goes to find out more. Poldi, however, is very ill and unable to provide any information. Blackie brings in his own doctor and together with Fitch starts to move Poldi out of his room and down some stairs and this is when they meet up with Reed and an exciting chase follows.Richard Widmark gives a strong performance as an underpaid public official who copes efficiently with the onerous responsibilities of his job whilst also dealing with his domestic preoccupations as a family man. In an unusual type of role for him, he also portrays the determined and serious minded nature of Dr Reed very convincingly. Jack Palance's film debut sees him giving an impressive performance as a ruthless thug who misjudges Kochak's reason for leaving the card game and also the reason for the intense police investigation. His distinctive looks also help to make his on-screen presence even more compelling.In typical docu-noir style, expressionist cinematography and neo-realist influences are utilized in tandem to effectively capture the atmosphere of the locations in which the action takes place. Elia Kazan directs with precision throughout but also excels in the memorable chase sequence in the warehouse and on the dockside.
| 1
|
train_6884
|
This miracle of a movie is one of those films that has a lasting, long term effect on you. I've read a review or two from angry people who I guess are either republicans or child beaters, and their extremist remarks speak of the films power to confront people with their own darkest secrets. No such piece of art has ever combined laughter and tears in me before and that is the miracle of the movie. The realism of the movie and it's performance by Bret Carr is not to be missed. The very nature of it's almost interactive effect, will cause people to leave the theater either liberated or questioning their very identity. Bravo on the next level of cinema.
| 1
|
train_18308
|
Back when Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger were a mercurial, hot-tempered, high-powered Hollywood couple they filmed this (nearly) scene-for-scene remake of the 1972 Steve McQueen-Ali MacGraw action-thriller about a fugitive twosome. It almost worked the first time because McQueen was such a vital presence on the screen--even stone silent and weary, you could sense his clock ticking, his cagey magnetism. Baldwin is not in Steve McQueen's league, but he has his charms and is probably a more versatile actor--if so, this is not a showcase for his attributes. Basinger does well and certainly looks good, but James Woods is artificially hammy in a silly mob-magnet role. A sub-plot involving another couple taken hostage by Baldwin's ex-partner was unbearable in the '72 film and plays even worse here. As for the action scenes, they're pretty old hat, which causes one to wonder: why even remake the original? ** from ****
| 0
|
train_20718
|
I never finished this movie for a reason, it was dreadful and thats just the acting. I wasn't even sure what the film was about tbh it didn't make a lot of sense and the violence was awful. I mean ususally i like some nude in a film (lol) but it was just sick because of what was happening. ALL the characters annoyed me and it was just full of loud screams and the camera was shaking at parts and it looked like a sequel to the blair with project but without any good qualities. This is one of the worst movies i have seen in a long time and would like my time back please. i wouldn't recommend this film to anyone or even consider it. (N)
| 0
|
train_20626
|
I didn't think this was as absolutely horrible as some people apparently do. It passes as one of those cheesy horror movies you might waste time with in the middle of the night when you can't sleep, although admittedly it's no better quality than that. It's true that the acting isn't great - I thought Marianne McAndrew as Cathy Beck, for example, came across as completely passionless - but the main problem is that several aspects of the plot didn't really make sense to me. The Becks are on a trip described by John (Stewart Moss) as part work and partly the honeymoon they never had (now that's romantic!) The work part has something to do with touring caves, which in itself sounds strange (how does being part of a tour group through a cave relate to anyone's work?) but it gets stranger when we find out that he's a doctor doing research in the area of preventative medicine (huh? That connection completely lost me.) Bitten by a bat while he's in the cave, he begins to transform into what I guess was supposed to be a human-bat hybrid (although when we finally see him in makeup he looks a lot more like an ape-man of some sort) and a killing spree starts. Here's another problem. The first killing is a nurse in a hospital. At first, everyone thinks her death was an accident. The second murder is of a young girl, who is described as having her throat ripped out. The sheriff (Michael Pataki) then tells us that her death was similar to the nurse's (meaning throat ripped out? - How could anyone think that was an accident?) And what's with the sheriff? He seems pretty no-nonsense until the scene in Cathy's hotel room when he takes a swig of liquor and then almost rapes her, after which everything seems to go back to normal. It's saddled with an ending that left almost everything unresolved, and also with one of the most irritating theme songs I've ever heard in a movie. Even for all that, there was something here that kept me watching. Sometimes pure cheesiness can get you through an hour and a half. Pretty bad, yeah - but not as awful as some people say.
| 0
|
train_21823
|
What did I just watch? I spent 90 minutes of my precious life watching one of the dumbest movies I've ever seen. The concept of a serial killer clown is actually quite scary seeing is there are a lot of people who are afraid of clowns....but having it be a 300 pound nursery rhyme reciting killer clown makes a mockery of the genre. I still am wondering how the character Mark wasn't able to run away from the Clown...he's 300 pounds, he's gotta get tired eventually. The whole ending made me get up and literally say aloud "What did I just watch?" Apparently Brandon is Denise's cousin.... and they had got it on near the middle of the movie meaning he had sex with his cousin.....yeah that's something people want so see *shudders*.Another thing I found hilariously stupid was the opening scene where the clown stabs a woman and she says "What did you do?" Well bytch, what do you think he just did? The last thing that was stupidly funny was one second the main character was slapping the hitch-hiker and calling her a c*nt and then 5 minutes later saying violence isn't helping anything....did the writer of the script give the line to the wrong guy? None of this movie makes sense anyway.The movie was more or less a dumb low budget porno which I got sucked into buying (all 3.99)and got no entertainment out of it besides the sex scenes. I'm surprised the fat clown didn't join the orgy, would have fit right in. I hoped the movie would have some entertainment value like other B movies might have, but I was wrong. This is a moronic piece of garbage that's not even worth watching.1 out of 10
| 0
|
train_6671
|
MYSTERY MEN has got to be THE stupidest film I've ever seen, but what a film! I thought it was fabulous, excellent and impressive. It was funny, well-done and nice to see ridiculous Super Heroes for a change! And being able to pull it off! This was great! I'll definitely watch it again!
| 1
|
train_18105
|
I was VERY disappointed with this film. I expected more of a Thelma and Louise female-buddy crime movie. Instead, the women prison escapees in this flick, had no sense of loyalty to one another. They were an extremely vulgar pack of hyenas, who beat each other up, double-crossed each other, and even committed lesbian rape against other women in the film.Instead of being shrewed thieves, who stuck together to plan their escape and find the hidden stash of money, the women escapees were too selfish and vicious, to trust each other for long. These women weren't liberated in a positive sense. They just ended up being a bunch of loose-cannons, incapable of respect for themselves, or each other. If you like 70s female crime caper films, skip this bomb, and see The Great Texas Dynamite Chase, which stars Claudia Jennings and Jocelyn Jones.
| 0
|
train_21925
|
Did anyone edit this film? Or was it only the DVD release that had huge thirty second gaps between scenes? It's OK though, I fell asleep watching it the first time. Then I fell asleep the second time and the third time. The plot is actually not the worst I've seen, but it's close. The acting is not the worst I've seen either...but it's close. The production .... well, I can honestly say that it was the worst I had ever seen in my life! Not trying to be spiteful, but Unhinged could have used some more production.Please don't think I'm a hater of horror films, or even that I didn't enjoy this film. I just felt I was laughing at the film much more than I felt I was laughing along with it. The gruesome moments were not too poorly done, but could have been done better even with a shoestring budget.Characters seemed awkwardly developed, or ignored all together, twist ending was pretty bad, and the exposition took forever without exposing much.I'd recommend avoiding this movie.1/10
| 0
|
train_4111
|
I first saw this movie as a pre-teen, about the age when kids start to think through their identity. I was greatly affected by the scene of the man and the children who he raises as his own. The eldest boy has been taunted that his mother is a prostitute and none of his siblings have the same biological father (which Kurosawa makes obvious by having children who look nothing like each other). The man still persuades tho boy that he is their father by the only definition that counts. The man is acclaimed to be father by all of the children but one, who still prefers her brother.Each of the vignettes are likewise compelling for their own stories and conclusions.It's a great film, even if it is not the greatest Kurosawa film.
| 1
|
train_21696
|
This is one of the worst films I've seen. The only positive thing I can say is it was so bad that is seemed comical. First off, there's no plot. The actors appear to be reading off cue cards and do the dumbest things. Such as being chased by dead people but yet wanting to go out and look for their friends. Also the zombies were terrible, no where near as fun as any of Romero's work, who gets s plug in the movie. And the dumbest part of all was they kept showing flashes of the video game in the action sequences. Like we don't get the video game is about shooting zombies. Also, all the 20 somethings some how know how to use automatic weapons and hit a target without even aiming the gun. And the way the people die is so stupid. It's like they run out of ammo so stand around waiting to be jumped on. And when cornered in front of the house they run out of ammo instead of shooting the door open, So dumb.FINAL VERDICT: If any of these actors appear in another film, then they've been blessed with a second chance. Definitely the worst film I've seen in years. A B-movie on cinemax is better.
| 0
|
train_15643
|
The tragedy of the doomed ship Titanic has inspired many books and movies. The battle between nature and technology always caught man's imagination. The latest film concerning this tragedy in the Atlantic Ocean was written and directed by famous action movie filmmaker James Cameron. The story of "Titanic" involves two fictional characters (Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet) from different backgrounds (one is a hobo-artist, the other is an aristocrat) and how their love triumphs over societal barriers and the tragedy of a sinking ship that they happen to be on.First of all, although using a historical name, this movie had little regard to history. The plot was built around two fictional lovers, French diamond, and treasure hunters. The deaths of over a thousand of people on the greatest luxury ship of its time became a mere background. Many historical facts were simply forgotten. Where was the radio operator that ignored the iceberg warnings? Why was there no mention of the ship that was only 5 miles away from the Titanic but did not come to the rescue because its captain failed to identify the distress signal? Omitting these facts is an insult to the tragedy. And what was the point of flavoring this historical disaster with fictional cheesy romance when the story is already as sad as it is.The overall plot was rather shallow; rich equals greed and corruption, poverty equals compassion and heroism. It is very ironic to spend $200 million to make a movie about how money corrupts. There was absolutely no human side shown in anti-heroes. It seemed like Billy Zane was playing a part of the devil. Casting was also very poor. If DiCaprio was 2 inches shorter than Winslet, you could swear she was his baby-sitter. The length of the movie was unnecessarily stretched to over 3 hours. First hour and the half was wasted on establishing the relationships between the characters that were known to audience long before they went to theater and the dialogue that was used to do so made it even worse. Hearing corny pick up lines such as "I see you" and "This is my side of the ship" generated more pain than the screams of drowning people. Also, jokes were too abundant and rather lame."Titanic" did involve some moving scenes such as the part when the musicians were playing while the ship was sinking but they were no way near anything original. The best thing about this film were its special effects, and that is the only thing that truly deserved an award.Although this film lacked artistical value in overall sense, the public could not resist a sentimental story starring Romeo (DiCaprio), and so the movie became a success. Now it is safe to say that the industry will be less hesitant to invest large amounts of money in a single motion picture, so it seems that "Titanic" did achieve something after all.
| 0
|
train_17951
|
Filmfour are going to have to do a lot better than this little snot of a film if they're going to get the right sort of reputation for themselves.This film is set in Glasgow (although only a couple of secondary characters have anything approaching a Scottish accent). The premise, about people who's lives are going nowhere, who all meet up in the same cafe in the early hours of the morning as they have night jobs, COULD have made for a really funny, insightful, quirky, cultish film. Instead we have a group of self-obsessed saddos and a plot which has been so done to bits I'm suprised it hasn't been banned. X and Y are friends. X is sleeping with Z. Y sleeps with Z as well. Oh you figure it out.A total waste of time. Painful dialogue - it sounded like something that a group of 16 year olds would have written for a GCSE drama project. The female character was completely superfluous - just written in as a token female in the hope that women would be cajoled into seeing it.If you're the sort of thicko lad who laughs at beer adverts and can usually be found wandering round in packs shouting on Saturday nights in nondescript town centres then you will love this film and find it "a right laff". Everyone else, run, don't walk away from this sorry little misfit.And one question, when the group left the "boring" seaside town (Saltcoats incidentally although they changed the name on the film), to go back to Glasgow, WHY did they do it via the Forton motorway services at LANCASTER which is in England?
| 0
|
train_23326
|
I can't say this is the worst film of all time, but only because there are still some movies I haven't seen, yet! This has to be the most pretentious attempt at making a movie of all time! The director suffers from the same issues he had with "There Will Be Blood" (though he wasn't quite as bad in that film. The whole movie it feels like you're watching a guy trying to hard to impress beyond his abilities. It's like he sits in his little director's chair and thinks "how would a great filmmaker handle this scene?" He just doesn't have it in him. I don't know if this film could be saved by a great filmmaker. There were certainly some nuggets of greatness that could have been polished, but nothing was brought to ripen. The scene where all the characters are singing was the worst moment in cinema history. One by one as we see the characters singing, and I squirmed in my seat, I kept saying "please, PLEASE, just don't have the guy on the brink of death singing, too!" Sure enough, MASSIVE FAILURE!
| 0
|
train_2792
|
I love this movie. It is great film that combines English and Indian cultures with feminist-type issues, such as girls wanting to play sports that were previously reserved for men. It shows the struggles of both an Indian person wanting to break outside her cultural barriers and women wanting to break outside the gender restrictions found in sports, especially in England at the time. I feel that the cultural struggles are more emphasized than the other issues.In contrast to the other comment, I do not think this movie is anything like Dirty Dancing or any other such chick flick. This move is loved by many types of people, men and women, young and old alike.
| 1
|
train_7599
|
Before Lost everything shown on TV was predictable . You could predict who was gonna die or who will find something, but in Lost you could predict NOTHING. Every thing was so surprisingly stunning and it really was a mystery not because it has so many secrets but because there was nothing like it before everything was so great. I literally became addicted to it. LOST is a classic work of art. It gives you something to look forward to every week. It is genius. The surrounding is brilliant it is calm and warm at the beach and so scary in the jungle. The characters are a work of genius every one of them especially the ones already on the island. The castaways are so dramatic yet we can never predict their deaths because they have so much more to do and so much more to say and they have secrets affecting the other castaways that die with them.
| 1
|
train_423
|
I just read the plot summary and it is the worst one I have ever read. It does not do justice to this incredible movie. For an example of a good summary, read the listing at "Turner Classic Movies". Anyway, this was one of my favorite movies as a young child. My sister and I couldn't wait until every April when we could see it on T.V. It is one of the best horse movies of it's time. It is one of those great classics that the whole family can watch. The romance is clean and endearing. The story line is interesting and the songs are great. They don't make movies like this anymore. Good acting and not over the top. Pat Boone and Shirley Jones are at their best, along with many other great character actors.
| 1
|
train_13446
|
Why is this show so popular? It's beyond me why people like it. I think it's one of the worst sitcoms out there. Because it's so popular, I've tried more than once to watch it and I can't make it through an entire episode.For one thing, the acting is horrible. Everybody is overacting to the point where it's annoying to watch. They talk in unnatural voices, use unnatural tones, and have unnatural body language. I've seen better acting in a kindergarten school play.For another thing, it's NOT FUNNY. The plots are dull. They're not creative, intelligent, or FUNNY. Shouldn't a sitcom be funny?? Why am I not laughing?Lastly, what is seventies about this? It's about as authentic to the seventies as "Happy Days" was to the fifties.OH and what is up with Ashton Kutcher? Who cast this untalented dweeb? And now he's making movies?? Oh, save us all!If people think this is quality television, it worries me.
| 0
|
train_13990
|
First of all, Jenna Jameson is the best actress in this movie, and she's just awful. This movie has every horror move cliché in imagination, and all badly played. The over-sexed teen couple. The comical(not)horny jock. The snotty cool chick. The creepy local color guy. The parental-type couple. The virginal chick who amazingly never dies in these films. The dialogue is so painfully awful and delivered with the depth of a wading pool. It's almost like you're wishing that they'd all die sooner. I saw the rough cut of this film a while ago, but somehow, this just got worse. Sure, the funniest thing in here is the ghoul trying to eat Jameson's implants, but that hardly rates even a rental of this dog. Avoid at all costs.
| 0
|
train_19913
|
Just finished watching, can't say I was impressed.It starts of quite good, the visual and the atmosphere gives a creepy feeling as this type of movie should. But it all ends when the first lordi monster appears. Not only do you recognize them from the band lordi, but they are seriously malplaced in the movie. Doomsday monsters with leather jackets and piercings are so 80's.As for the storyline, it starts of as similar horror movies, people trapped inside a hell hole. But there is no clear story on why and what is happening. The viewer is thrown some lines on possible reasons, but the lines never meet and end up to anything but a mess.With all the money spent on this film, with an intriguing start and some good effects, I had thought someone would have taken better care of the product. I wonder if lordi made this movie just to prove that their show costumes could be scary (except they aren't).So the movie gets cred for the visuals, i guess the money had to go somewhere. But the rest is an embarrassing attempt from a rock band to make their on-stage monster aliases scarier.
| 0
|
train_2341
|
This is indeed a funny show, done in a creepy sort of way, much like a Tim Burton film. It's worth a look, as it's far more creative than most of the shows this season. Best of all, it's not a "reality" show. I'm wondering why the viewing public is so ready to accept shows like that (which lack creativity) and ignore wonderful shows like this that actually have a creative bent.While some decry the premise, I think it's really unusual. Much more enjoyable than "Ghost Whisperer" and "Medium". I think it's the funniest thing on the tube since "My Name is Earl".Oh, and the narration and music are wonderful. If you enjoy shows that are a bit off the beaten path, I'd recommend it. It's not as strange as Twin Peaks was, but it's got a serious kink to it.
| 1
|
train_13724
|
Who in their right mind does anything so stupid as this movie?Accidental killing of a security guard... characters that are so two dimensional that a two year old could have painted drawn them... and better...A red toolbox of death? Please....Hypothermic weak thugs...Acting from hell...Stylistically this movie shifts between teen comedy, thriller, voyeurism and... female ... (uhm) Rambo?Unbelievable and it's an insult to any thinking person. Do not watch, walk away it's more horrible than you may imagine...And on top of it all it's trying to be hip by being overly graphic in it's violence...Mrs Montford: Shoot 'Em Up was fun and funny, this is just pathetic and terrible. Good luck next time. :-(
| 0
|
train_13675
|
Much has been made of Rohmer's use of digital technology to 'fill in' the background. At times it works well, the scene where Grace and her maid witness from afar the King's execution is particularly striking. At other times it gives the film a strangely amateurish look, resembling a home video. However, the major failing is that the sheer artificiality of the mise en scene creates an alienating effect in the viewer. We know that what we are watching is not real so how can we feel for the characters? To be frank, I did not care at all what happened to the Lady or the Duke.The other major failing, I regret to say, is the performance of Lucy Russell in the leading role. She is in virtually every scene and the success or otherwise of the film rests on her performance. OK she is speaking a foreign language but she is incapable of expressing real emotion. Her emoting in the scene where she recounts to her friend Mme de Meyler (an excellent performance by the debutante Helena Dubiel) seeing the head on a pole caused some embarrassed laughter in the audience. Also, watch her hands when she is expressing emotion!All in all a very disappointing film, particularly given the positive reviews on this site.
| 0
|
train_1872
|
Not having seen the film in the original theater release, I was happily surprised when the DVD arrived, since this film did not have the wide distribution it merited.Denzel Washington directorial debut and the finished product have nothing to envy other films about the same theme by more accomplished directors. The film has a very professional look. It shows that Mr. Washington has learned a lot being on the other side of the camera. He brings a different angle to this film.One of the best things the film has is, without a doubt, the fine performance by Derek Luke. He is an actor who, with the right guidance, will go far, no doubt. His take on the troubled young man, at this point of his life, in turmoil and suffering for a bad hand life, up to now, has dealt him, is very true. His Antwone is a fine portrait of a man in pain who is basically very good and has so much to give, but no one seems to see that side of his character.At the worst time of his despair, Antwone is sent to Dr. Davenport, played by Mr. Washington, in a very sober, if somehow subdued manner. Because of the angst within Antwone, he misses the opportunity of opening himself to this man, who wants to help, but because of the constrains placed on his office, just have three sessions and then has to dismiss his patient.Things work out, as Antwone is able to convince the doctor to keep on working with him. Antwone's past is revealed in detail. The abuse he suffers at the hands of Mrs. Tate, his foster mother, is brutal, to say the least. The attempt at the hand of an older woman in the Tate's household of a sexual molestation, gives Antwone a bitter taste that stays with him throughout his adult life, as he has been scarred by the shame he carries with him.Antwone finds love at last with Cheryl, who is patient enough to make him see a different world by the love she and support she gives him.The lead performances are very good indeed. Denzel Washington's Dr. Davenport has his own problems too. He is not a happy camper either. He can help Antwone, but he cannot help himself, or his relationship with an adoring wife. The talent in the film is incredible. Joy Bryant makes a fine Cheryl. Novella Nelson, who is a fine actress is superb as Mrs. Tate, the abusing foster mother.The reunion of Antwone with his unknown family is a bit too sugary and sentimental, but of course, if one is to believe that Fisher finds happiness at last, one has to accept that part of the film as well.
| 1
|
train_15194
|
warning:It contains spoilers. If a movie starts with a sex scene then it's a bad movie. (see for example 300). This one confirms the above lemma. The second scene constitutes the spinning center of all the action. The fact that we know the end makes the movie boring. Even more, other plots are revealed as the story goes back and forth several times. And this made more frustrated. To compensate the consequent lack of suspense, we learn more and more about how unbalanced are the characters. And oh yes, they have lots to show. Andy (P.Hoffman), for example, is a drug addict, more?, he is cheating his wife, more?, he plans to rob his father, more?, his wife is cheating with his brother, more?, he doesn't regret his complicity to his mother's death, more?, he is a serial killer, more? etc etc it's not enough space to write here... I wonder how could he have a top job. And why his wife didn't leave him before. On the other hand I enjoy much the performances of the actor Hoffman.Even here PSH saves what is left from my 7$ spent for this absurdity. Why absurdity? Because it doesn't have sense, why should I care for the despicable characters? Another broken lemma is that a movie should have a sympathetic( at least pleasant) character. Also it's a lot of sentimentality, for example we are supposed to care for the sufferance of the widowed father without knowing anything about the parents'lives before the crime.
| 0
|
train_13353
|
Ok, honestly I dont see why everybody thinks this is so great. Its really not. There were two good things that came out of this movie 1. Jack's performance, he was very good I can tip my hat for him. 2. Danny's performance, he was good. No other then that it got pretty stupid. And, what was Stanley Kubrick thinking drafting Shelly as the Wendy? She was so bad. She looked the same every time she got scared. The problem with this movie was the ending. I would have had more respect for it if Kubrick would have ended it differently. And, the over all movie was just stupid. The problem with the movie is that the book was so much better. So dont see the movie read the book and you will be much better off. 3/10.
| 0
|
train_4929
|
I can't really condemn the movie because it does work. There is enough film noir elements to consider it a noir movie, but I think it's only just in the category.There's nothing sinister in this piece, and that's where the noir elements fail. Sure, the disease might be considered sinister, but I have a hard time seeing that. The movie hints at a darker side: Blackie may be trafficking human beings, the New Orleans police are only too willing to arrest a reporter, the specter of the plague hangs over all of the people in the movie... but those are really only hints.There's no attempt made to question Reed's motivations, as one with do with Marlowe or Spade, nor is there any attempt to bring a humans side to Blackie, which would make him even more contemptuous if the human trafficking was actually played out.That lack of depth is what fails the movie in the end.The story is decent, the acting is good, the writing and direction are well done... but there is nothing to make this a movie you should return to over and over. Worth watching once, maybe twice if you don't remember it from years ago, and then putting away.
| 1
|
train_23222
|
**SPOILERS*** Slow as molasses mummy movie involving this expiation in the Valley of the Kings in Egypt that has to be aborted in order to keep the native population, who are at the time revolting against British rule, from finding out about it.Given the task of getting to this archaeological dig by his superiors British Capt. Storm, Mark Dana, together with a couple of British soldiers and Mrs. Sylvia Quentin, Diane Brewster, the wife of the head man at the dig Robert Quentin, George N. Neise, make their way to the unearthed mummy's tomb. On the way there Capt. Storm Sylvia and his men run into this desert-like princess Simira, Ziva Rodann.Simira seems to be superhuman in her ability to withstand the rigors of desert life, she doesn't drink water or get tired, but also knows just what Capt. Storm & Co. are looking for and warns him and his group to stay as far away from the dig, Pharaoh's Ra Ha Tet tomb, as possible.At Ra Ha Tet's burial chamber Robert Quentin and his crew of archeologist's together with his Egyptin guide Simira's brother Numar, Alvaro Guillot,already opened his tomb before Capt. Storm can get there to stop them. Quentin violated Ra Ha Tet's body by having Dr. Farrady, Guy Prescott, cut his bandages. This action on Robert's and Dr. Farrady's part has Numar faint dead in his tracks. It later turns out that Numar somehow was possessed by Ra Ha Tet's spirit or soul who took over his body and caused him to age, at the rate of 500 years per hour, to become himself a 3,000 year-old mummy.The movie has Numar dressed in what looks like a pair of pajamas slinking around Ra Ha Tet's tomb and it's surroundings attacking and sucking out the blood in order to survive, like a vampire, of anyone man or animal that he comes in contact with. This blood-sucking adventure by Numar, with him later losing his right arm, goes on for some time until the by now crazed Quentin trying to find the entrance, you in fact thought that he already found it, to Ra Ha Tet's tomb get's himself killed is an indoor rock slide.We learn at the end of the movie that Numar, to absolutely no one's surprise, is actually Ra Ha Tet reincarnated into another, some 3,000 years later, person or life. Numar's sister the mysterious and sexy Simira is not only Ra Ha Tet's sister, since him and Numar are really one and the same person, but also the Egyptian Cat Goddess Babesti! Also not that hard to figure out.With Numar/Ra Ha Tet back in his tomb and all the deaths, due the the Pharaoh's Curse, now at an end Capt. Storm Sylvia and whatever is left of his men and the late Robert Quentin's archaeological expedition trek their way back to Cairo and modern, this in 1902, civilization. The survivors of Pharaoh Ra Ha Tet Curse keep what they found, and unearthed, only to themselves since no one would believe them anyway.
| 0
|
train_8304
|
I caught this film late on a sat night/ Sunday morning with my brother. We had been drinking. This is one of the best films for ripping apart I have ever seen. From the 'luxury' ocean liner actually being a 'roll on, roll off' ferry, complete with cast iron everything to the doors with adhesive stickers saying staff, then seeing the same door being used for something else in another scene - this film rocks!! The continuity is so poor you cant help but notice it, it slaps you in the face with the holes. In the final scene he jumps off a life boat with the ferry in the distance. Cut to his son and new girlfriend (The ships PR director who knows kung-fu and used to be in the police but was dismissed for doing things her way - true)on the ferry going very fast away from the explosion. ......Then the dad is there hugging them. HoW???? Who cares, its magic. There is not one redeeming feature to this film. The casino is the size of a large bedroom with one casino table. when being chased by the villains there is only One place to hide, you've guessed it. Enter the villains who, instead of checking under the One table, proceed to shoot up four fruit machines and a little corner bar (a corner bar in the casino - fantastic). They walk straight past the only hiding place thus allowing our Casper to get around them and 'take them out'.Get some mates over, get a few drinks in, put this film on and howl.
| 1
|
train_17012
|
Having lived in Japan for several years this movie does not reflect the Japanese culture and does not even come close to explain what being a Geisha is all about. Unfortunately, a great opportunity has been missed to bring the Japanese culture a bit closer to the broad Western audience and help demystify the country where Zen, Samurai, the Geisha world of Kyoto originate from. Some of the most poignant moments of the movie are when the Americans are shown in Japanese surroundings.The Geisha dances were not authentic. There was far too much use of Chinese music. A minor but essential detail: proper use of the incense sticks was nowhere to be seen. The Sakura scenes were almost obscenely kitschy ! Interestingly, some of the Chinese actors were quite convincing as Japanese persons.
| 0
|
train_8448
|
I have always been a huge fan of "Homicide: Life On The Street" so when I heard there was a reunion movie coming up, I couldn't wait.Let me just say, I was not disappointed at all. It was one of the most powerful 2 hours of television I've ever seen. It was great to see everyone back again, but the biggest pleasure of all was to have Andre Braugher back, because the relationship between Pembleton and Bayliss was always the strongest part of an all-together great show.
| 1
|
train_5138
|
Back in 1994, I had a really lengthy vacation around the Fourth of July - something like 17 days off in a row what with two weeks paid vacation, weekends and the holiday itself. I stayed in town during that time, hanging out at my parents' house a lot.I didn't have a TV in my apartment so I used to watch my parents' tube. I had just finished watching a segment of the X Files when a program came on called Personal FX. I was hooked instantly. I had always been fascinated with items in our home that had come from my parents' family homes and through inheritances from relatives' estates, and often wondered about their history, value, etc.After my long vacation, I used to go to my folks' house on my lunch-hours just to catch Personal FX.I can remember one episode during which co-host Claire Carter announced that the New York apartment in which the series was filmed was being renovated and that once said renovations were complete that Personl FX would return to the air.It never did! Personal FX was the first -and best - of the collectible shows. And it vanished from the air! Almost fifteen years later, I'm still sore.Way to go, FX.
| 1
|
train_17784
|
This production never really got off the ground for me. The plot is so cut up as to be disjointed and the production is so short that unless you've read the novel or seen a better adaptation (like the 1995 one with Amanda Root) you're going to be a bit lost since there's no time for character development.I liked Sally Hawkins as Anne, but the rest of the cast fell rather short of what they should have been. Mrs. Croft was far too old, as was Anne's elder sister Elizabeth. Mary uttered everything in such throbbing accents that the general peevishness and selfishness of her character was lost. Much better was Sophie Thompson's Mary, whose selfishness and sense of ill-usage is so well established that by the time Wentworth suggests Anne stay with the injured Louisa and Mary objects that she, as Louisa's sister in law, should stay instead, you can't imagine anyone less suited to do so. In this version, she might as well stay as she is insufficiently differentiated from anyone else in the production.Rupert Penry-Jones is nice to look at, but he made a much better St. John Rivers (1995 Jane Eyre), probably because that character required less implied depth of feeling. I agree with the comments made earlier about the gig scene: seemed more like he was trying to get rid of Anne than do her a favor. Likewise the accident scene: it happens so fast and with so little context, you wonder what all the fuss is about. And moving the speech that Wentworth overhears in the novel to the beginning of this production is a critical misstep that only contributes to the disjointed nature of the script. My other problem with this version was the lighting. Sometimes everything looked like a scene from the CSI morgue -- very very blue. Other times the lighting was so bad it was hard to make out the scene very well, like when Anne visits her old school friend, Mrs. Smith (who, by the way, is supposed to be more or less paralyzed. Having her run up to Anne on the street to tell her of Mr. Elliot's awful character was such a violation that for a minute I couldn't think who she was -- I thought she was one of the Musgrove girls. And she might as well have been. All the girls were pretty much interchangeable). And the running scene at the end...in an era where propriety was at a premium, it's hard to imagine gentle Anne tearing all over Bath like some demented hoyden. How silly can you get? It's too bad. Sally Hawkins had all the makings of a good Anne Elliot, but she was completely hamstrung by a poorly organized script and an over-truncated production.
| 0
|
train_14417
|
This film, although not totally bad, should have been filmed where the actual events took place. Grand Island, Nebraska was devastated by no less than seven tornados on the night of June 3, 1980. Grand Island is situated in the nearly treeless, flat Platte River Valley in Hall county. The makers of this movie filmed in the tree covered hills of Ontario and moved the whole event to a non-existant town called Blainsworth. The people of Grand Island bravely survived this awful night only to be forgotten because of a poorly made movie.
| 0
|
train_17293
|
It's been close to ten years since I've seen either of the last two sequels to "Phantasm" - surely due to my still vivid remembrance of them not being very good. That being acknowledged to this day, I'm still a huge fan of the first two installments so I thought I'd go back and re-experience the 'final chapters'. Part three is definitely the worst of the series since it obviously takes itself less seriously and throws in a bunch of confusing stuff that doesn't make much sense... Again, kicking off right where the previous movie left us, Reggie saves Mike from the Tall Man who vows to come back for him later, but things aren't safe for long when they come across Jody who is inexplicably able to the take the form of a sphere. Apparently his soul is held prisoner by the Tall Man so Mike is then dragged into the sinister double-pronged Netherworld and Reg has to find him... Along the way, he meets up with a ten year-old kid and a nun-chuck wielding black chick named Rocky who assist him throughout his journey.There's really nothing memorable about "Phantasm III" other than how stupid and forcefully "humorous" it tries to be. Only one positive aspect that didn't even help the movie and that was the return of A. Michael Baldwin and Bill Thornbury who reprise their roles for the first time since the original 1978 classic. The problem is, they pretty much make cameo appearances... Reggie Banister is of course back in his starring role, but his bumbling, love-sick attitude makes his presence far too annoying to like. Angus Scrimm also just didn't seem entirely "into" his role. He talks too much here and is nowhere near as menacing and creepy in contrast with the "quirkiness" that the movie seemed to carelessly resort to. Most people's opinion on this flick seem pretty impassive and tend to think "it's still entertaining". Maybe I'm just too much of a nit picker but I just couldn't get into this one. I remember disliking it when I was a kid and after re-watching it - I can safely say - nothing has changed. Don Coscarelli rocked the scene with his original low-budget, nightmarish, legendary film "Phantasm", which I still rank as my top favorite horror flick and his respectable sequel kept things moving and darkly surreal and GORY, but "Lord of the Dead" (stupid title) just looked too rushed and slapped together to me... The inclusion of the two new characters, Tim and Rocky (the only thing missing was Scrappy Doo!!), was a strong indication of Coscarelli running out of ideas and seeing how far he could ride the franchise...So, it's a "Phantasm" movie with very little gore, nudity, and quadruple-barrel shot guns. Need I say more?
| 0
|
train_666
|
Episode two of season one is a delightful holiday tale of love, betrayal,...and a homicidal, escaped lunatic dressed as Father Christmas.A woman (Mary Ellen-Trainor)has just murdered her hubby on Christmas Eve for his life insurance. What begins as a perfect crime begins a struggle to survive as a deranged, Santa Clause suit wearing psychopath (Larry Drake, perfectly over the top) threatens her life...as well as her precious young daughters.This episode is warmly remembered by even those casually acquainted with the program. By the way,this particular reviewer watches it every Christmas on routine. Most notable for it's escalating suspense and narrative twists, And All Through The Houst is among Tales From The Crypt's best.
| 1
|
train_4916
|
Plague replaces femme fatale in this highly suspenseful noir shot in New Orleans by director Elia Kazan. Kazan as always gets fine performances from his actors but also shows a visual flair for claustrophobic suspense with a combination of tight compositions and stunning single shot chase scenes. A man entering the country illegally is killed after a card game. It turns out he has a form of bubonic plague so it remains crucial not only to arrest the killers but to find an inoculate all those who have had contact. City and health officials implement a plan of secrecy rather than alert the community for fear the culprits will flee the city and spread the disease. A detective and an epidemiologist up against the clock form an uneasy alliance as they comb the waterfront employing their contrasting investigatory styles. Streets raises a huge ethical question about the publics right to know as the medical officer argues for a media blackout thus possibly creating a greater risk to the community. Regardless of outcome, you still may find yourself second guessing the actions of the the film's protagonist. Richard Widmark as Dr.Clint Reed and Paul Douglas as Detective Warren display short tempers and grudging respect for each other in their search for the killers. Barbera Bel Geddis as Reed's wife has some good moments with Widmark in some domestic scenes that bring the right touch of (restful more than comic) relief from the tensions of the desperate search amid the grim environs of the New Orleans waterfront impressively lensed by cinematographer Joe McDonald. Zero Mostel as a small time criminal is slimy and reprehensible but at times sympathetic. Walter Jack Palance as the skeletal Blackie (Black Death?) is simply outstanding. With riveting intensity Palance dominates every scene he is in not only with ample threat but disturbing charm as well. In addition he displays a formidable athleticism that allows for a more suspenseful continuity, especially in the film's powerful final allegorical moments. Panic in the Streets is probably Kazan's best non-Brando film. It's tension filled, suspensefully well paced and edited. It's ambient on locale setting lends a sense of heightened reality that allows Kazan the flexibility to display his visual style beyond the movie stage and with Panic he succeeds with aplomb.
| 1
|
train_21711
|
This film reminds me a lot of the anti-drug films of the 50's and 60's due to the fact that it was made by people that have obviously never experienced the social evil that they are warning us about. Tom Hanks and his buddies are "role playing", but there are no dice, lots of candles, and then you are just swept away in a bad montage showing Hanks falling for the lady in the group. quite funny but misguided. I wonder how many poor kids had their D&D stuff destroyed, and were told that the use of their imagination was the road to destruction. As a film it's basically an after school special, bad acting (although Hanks does show some of his talent) and relationship talks, and no one seems to be having any fun. It seems these films have a psychological focus on adolescents starting on the road to adultism, which is more serious, apparently, and requires you to buckle down and do the things everyone else does. Despite my vote of 2, this is worth watching due to its unique genre, scare films, which I personally find quite funny.
| 0
|
train_4122
|
I sure would like to see a resurrection of a up dated Seahunt series with the tech they have today it would bring back the kid excitement in me.I grew up on black and white TV and Seahunt with Gunsmoke were my hero's every week.You have my vote for a comeback of a new sea hunt.We need a change of pace in TV and this would work for a world of under water adventure.Oh by the way thank you for an outlet like this to view many viewpoints about TV and the many movies.So any ole way I believe I've got what I wanna say.Would be nice to read some more plus points about sea hunt.If my rhymes would be 10 lines would you let me submit,or leave me out to be in doubt and have me to quit,If this is so then I must go so lets do it.
| 1
|
train_22179
|
This movie was awful in the worst way: you just didn't care. You didn't care what happened in the plot; you didn't care about the characters. Everyone was devoid of heart. I ended up walking out about an 45 minutes into it because I simply didn't want to subject my mind to it any more. There is far too much sex in the film. Sex can be okay; it can even make the movie (hence Karma Sutra) but the intercourse here was not beautiful or sexy. It was just ugly. Don't see this film.
| 0
|
train_57
|
I have to say that this is one of the best movies I have ever seen! I was bored and looked through the t.v. and found "Home Room" and it was already in about 5 min., but I got hooked. It was so interesting and moving. It shows what can happen in anyone's life. I give it a 10, more if possible. The director/ writer and actors did an amazing job. I think teens should watch this movie and will learn from it. It was great, drama, mystery, and more. I cried for hours! I think that the director/ writer should write more movies like this one. I loved it! I didn't even know about this movie, which is sad because it was so good. I wish it could go in the movies for more people to see.
| 1
|
train_22440
|
In the 60's, having as the background the rehearsal and recording of "Sympathy for the Devil" in the classic album "Beggar's Banquet" by the revolutionary bad boy Rolling Stones Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Charlie Watts, Bill Wyman and Brian Jones plus Marianne Faithful, Godard discloses other contemporary revolutionary and ideological movements the Black Power through the Black Panthers, the feminism, the communism, the fascism - entwined with the reading of a cheap pulp political novel divided in the chapters: "The Stones Rolling; "Outside Black Novel"; "Sight and Sound"; "All About Eve"; "The Heart of Occident"; "Inside Black Syntax"; and, "Under the Stones the Beach"."Sympathy for the Devil" is another pretentious and boring mess of the uneven director Jean-Luc Godard. The narrative and the footages are awful, but fortunately I love the Stones and "Sympathy for the Devil" and it is nice to see them in the beginning of their careers; otherwise this documentary would be unbearable. My vote is three.Title (Brazil): "Sympathy for the Devil"
| 0
|
train_21290
|
I saw this on cable recently and kinda enjoyed it. I've been reading the comments here and it seems that everyone likes the second half more than the first half. Personally, I enjoyed the first story (too bad that wasn't extended.) The second story, I thought, was cliched. And that "California Dreaming," if I hear that one more time... Chungking Express is alright, but it's not something that mainstream audiences will catch on to see, like "Crouching Tiger."
| 0
|
train_7134
|
John Thaw is a an excellent actor. I have to admit that I was impressed by his range in the role of a crusty old curmudgeon who reluctantly agrees to take in an evacuee from the streets of London (WWII time era).That being said, the film is also excellent. A very moving story with a satisfying ending. Some of the characters are a little underdeveloped (the school teacher in particular), but none of them are essential to the plot. Basically, the story is about the old man and the boy, and the film needs little else.
| 1
|
train_24323
|
TOM BROWN'S SCHOOLDAYS Aspect ratio: 1.78:1Sound format: StereoIn late 19th century England, young Tom Brown (Alex Pettyfer) is sent to the public school at Rugby where he experiences the reforms of a radical new headmaster (Stephen Fry) and stands up to the school's resident bully, Flashman (Joseph Beattie).Already the subject of numerous screen adaptations - most notably Gordon Parry's superior 1951 version - Thomas Hughes' evergreen novel gets the early 21st century treatment, courtesy of screenwriter Ashley Pharoah (TV's "Where the Heart Is") and director David Moore (THE FORSYTE SAGA). It's pleasant enough, and watchable, but it's also rather staid and dull, distinguished only by Fry's sincere performance as the new principal determined to sweep away some of the school's most dubious 'traditions', and by the introduction of a possible new star in 14 year old Pettyfer, a talented kid with the kind of effortless charm and vivid good looks that should take him all the way to Hollywood and beyond. Otherwise, this is typical UK TV fodder, the kind of stuff favored by executives eager to fill the schedules with 'prestige' product, even one as thoroughly unremarkable as this. The UK publication 'Radio Times' described it as "daintily odd" and raised a querulous eyebrow over "all of that fagging and brutality and a handsome, rakish villain torturing the life out of sweet young boys". Quite.
| 0
|
train_10699
|
When I saw Birthday Girl I liked it so much I set out to see every Nicole Kidman film I could, only to find all of them a disappointment compared to it. I theorize that while the presence of a particular star usually guarantees a certain level of quality because of their artistic control, with Nicole Kidman the influence she exerts is detrimental to film enjoyment--IMHO. Thus for instance, Dogville, even depriving the viewer of anything visual to detract from the existential insight she is hammering home, or other films promoting gay and lesbianism as worthy of anyone else's attention, or other pet causes of Kidman's. Here she is a natural woman and she does a really great job. I don't how or who was able to restrain her, but apparently it worked. The way the film depicts her openness despite her resistance gets to the heart of what makes a woman a woman. And consequently, what makes a man's most desperate hopes marginally attainable. Of course, the fact the male lead transforms from a milquetoast clerk to macho man in the space of one film sounds like a male ego expansion fantasy, but his transformation is adequately believable. It isn't coyly contrived as it would be in a film engineered to bolster male ego. Instead it accurately records necessary growth arising from the films unique circumstances.Also quite charming is the way the criminals are portrayed as perfectly human, apart from their criminal mission. Her gang has a coed rough and tumble fellowship which is foreign to American culture. And while they are his adversaries, they are never really his enemy. In effect, they teach him to be compete.I really marveled at Kidman's ability to physically appear Russian. It had me wondering whether her ancestry was Russian, but none of the photos of her I examined showed any hint of it. Maybe it is just makeup but it was amazing. I can only hope that they knock her over the head again soon so she can turn out another great film. Despite my gratuitous digs at Ms. kidman, the message is this is a superior film in every way and probably the role of a lifetime.
| 1
|
train_9991
|
I thought this movie was hysterical. I have watched it many times and recommend it highly. Mel Brooks, was excellent. The cast was fantastic..I don't understand how this movie gets a 2 out of 5 rating. I loved it.. I have seen other movies of his and they were also funny but this one really stick out in my mind because of the humor.. His I just can't say enough about this movie. I look for it to be on periodically but it never on enough for me. The people playing the homeless people were by comparison up to the funniest standards also. Please put this movie on more often. I can't see it enough..Leslie Ann Warren also was another favorite of mine, ever since Cinderella. I always thought that she wasn't really funny but loved her acting. In this movie she was very funny..and her and Mel did a great job together. They should put more of his movies on TV.
| 1
|
train_16809
|
A high school principal (Keenan Wynn) with a losing basketball team unwittingly hires a coach who turns out not only to be a gorgeous blond woman (Cathy Lee Crosby) but a catalyst for their new winning ways. Are you really surprised? Along the way a romance grows between the coach and the team's star player Jack (Michael Biehn). The police are never notified.Packaged along with other Crown International Pictures as a grindhouse movie really does this film no service. This can easily be edited into a television movie of the week. Cathy Lee Crosby looks great as coach Randy Rawlings especially in her skimpy outfits but I expected more than mere titillation from an R-rated film. A side plot involving a dorky center who is hypnotized by his teammates into thinking he is former NBA player Sydney Wicks is the actual reason for the team's new success rather than Cathy Lee's coaching. Too much tease and not enough sleaze makes this a major disappointment.
| 0
|
train_255
|
There are few films that leave me with the feeling that Gregor Jordan's 'Ned Kelly' film did. Initially I had heard only half hearted recommendations, and decided to see it for myself. Since then, I have acquired both the video and soundtrack, and have to say that after several viewings, I am still very impressed with the underlying character of this film. It is also wonderful to see something Australian! I appreciate its down to earth quality, that if you ask me is a rarity, as well as the absence of tackiness that takes away from so many films. This film proves that you don't necessarily require fancy costumes and a glamorous set that absorbs how many millions of dollars to make a point. The cast was a bonus, including a variety of well known, and might I add, good looking people who did well to slip into the role of such unique characters. It is interesting to note, that much of the criticism regarding this film has been about who played what, and how they only said so many lines. However, if any criticism is due, it should constructively focus on the fact that a number of basic elements of the original events were excluded. In reality, these functioned to made it the hallmark that it is in Australian history. For example, on a closer examination it can be discovered that there was much, much more to the relationship between Joe Byrne and Aaron Sheritt, and that this was in fact responsible for many more of the final outcomes for the gang than were explored in the film. Also overlooked was the fact that it was not only Aaron Sheritt's efforts alone, that provided the Victorian police with their insights into the unfolding mystery. Yes, this is their interpretation of the story, and it is understandable that true stories require sensationalism and at times the modification of the original plot to grab the viewers attention. I feel that in this case, this is the only limitation. However, I can accept that perhaps historical accuracy is only of significance to those who have a particular interest in the realistic events behind a situation. It certainly inspired me to look more closely. So, watch it and decide for yourself. You might not like it at all, thats your opinion, and thats fine. Maybe it is a film that appeals largely to an Australian audience? For me, I'd call it a breath of fresh air!
| 1
|
train_4556
|
I watched this film in shire joy.This is possibly one of the best films of all time. It has a timeless value, you can get so much out of it it's amazing. There are parts that are moving, funny, and just great.All aspect are spot on, the portrayal of the story is perfect, every detail is 100% genuine, even small Irish subtleties have been covered.The use of low and high shots gives two great views on Cristy (look out for that).Daniel Day-Lewis's performance is incredible. I've never seen an actor do that, ever. It really is amazing.And it's so great to watch, it flows so well, it's probably the closest thing yo can get to real life experience. I love it.If you haven't seen it, you should see it. Don't have any doubts on it, there is something there for all.
| 1
|
train_1773
|
Barriers seems to be one of those series that have been lost in the mists of time. After it's transmission in the early 80s and one repeat, it's since sunk without trace. This is a crying shame.I originally watched this when it was transmitted in the Southern TV region on Sunday afternoons and was classic tea-time viewing. Although I don't remember a great deal about the program, a few things stuck in my mind. Most notable were the unforgettable titles. The mournful flute music accompanying the attempted escape across an East European border and the subsequent car crash (and that scene has left me with an abiding love of 'fintail' Mercedes models as they used a Merc 200). Although it wasn't obvious at the start, the solution to the series' mystery was in these titles.The plot about a young music student trying to unravel what really happened when he discovers he was adopted had lots of twists and turns but Barriers was a surprisingly 'adult' children's drama. Benedict Taylor was excellent as Billy and it was a shame he didn't do a lot more.This was a quality drama, well overdue for a DVD release and I hope I'll get the chance to re-acquaint myself with it in the future.A fond memory from my childhood
| 1
|
train_24569
|
A grade-Z horror filmmaker Carl Monson was one of the most prolific directors operating within the field of the low-budget gory mayhem.His movies are full of inept gore,laughable acting,boring sub-plots and woeful dialogue.A mysterious black clad figure is savagely murdering guests staying at the family mansion.Unfortunately this film is almost bloodless.You don't actually see the murders except with shadows and a few blood splatters.The pace is lethargic and the plot is rather uninteresting.The acting is merely competent,but the lack of gore and mutilation left me disappointed.A generous 4 out of 10.Just beware:do not mistake Monson's film with Andy Milligan's equally weak "Legacy of Blood".
| 0
|
train_20373
|
This film is so bad and gets worse in every imaginable fashion. Its not just the poor acting and script nor is it the lame and perverse time one wastes on watching it. What really puts this film in my hall of shame is the apparent struggling that the writers and producers do with the film to try and make it funny. The actress replacing Jean Reno's descendant is to old and learned her lesson in the first film so they add a new girl who is to be married. Nearly all of the original extras and gags return however this time makes me want to ripe my eyes out of my sockets because it's a waste of perfectly good film. The torture of the constant camera cuts and shots in any scene in this movie can put the viewer into violent convolutions. This second film takes the successful original and drags it out of its coffin and parades the corpse out in the public square and perversely degrades not only the original idea and its legacy but our intelligence as well. This film unlike the spruce goose could not fly for it had no plot in the principals returning for a 'necklace'. No script since it was apparently written and added to daily. No attention to camera or shots in mind. Poor lighting and special effects done for the sake of doing so. This film would not even pass for a student film in basic Film 101. How this pile got through no one can tell. It was a big loosing investment and it appears that no one had the strength to put this unnatural cruel mistake out of our miseries. This movie has one good part ...its END! This film is my #1 worst film of all time, finally "Howard The Duck" is no longer the goose.
| 0
|
train_15520
|
What of Domino did I hate over everything, and I mean everything, else? Perhaps it was the overall glorification of being a bounty hunter; maybe it was the sexism masquerading as an involving and interesting study of a hard bodied female lead character; maybe it was the mere look of the film with its bizarre yellow glow and distorted blue tints or the manner in which it takes an actress like Lucy Lui; who deserves a lot better than this junk; and has her sit there in the one spot in the room the light cannot directly hit with the same dumb look on her face. Maybe it's the editing; that horrid rapid fire editing and the manner in which lines of dialogue echo as they're uttered by people like Kiera Knightly who, if you buy as a bounty hunter, then you'll probably be able to kid yourself into believing the world will end in 2012.Nobody comes away from Domino with any sort credibility, absolutely nobody at all. It is a painful and misguided experience, taking inspiration from things like Natural Born Killers and letting loose ideas to an audience not even there for them. The principal question is: 'Was Domino supposed to be some kind of comedy?' what with its hilariously bad lead uttering certain lines that desperately want us to think she's coming across as 'tough' but really, she resembles more an arrogant fifteen year old girl on her first day at public school, attempting to impress her peers. There are things you genuinely don't know how to react to, whether they're supposed to be funny or not. If it is supposed to be a comedy, that begs the next question: 'Is the life of a bounty hunter really the sort worth exploiting for laughs?' I don't think so.The film opens with the title card 'Based on a true story........sort of.' If that's supposed to be some sort of post-modernist technique that enables director Tony Scott to bend and manipulate the story of Domino Harvey for his own unique purpose, then you're simply on another planet. Truth is, in that one opening quote the film identifies the subject matter and the original text before completely copping out and saying 'sort of' which I guess is supposed to enable them to make Domino older than she should be and appear on Jerry Springer. Following this, we learn of Domino's relationship with her father who died in the film when when she was ten or something; here is the first use of the 'sort of' cop out as in real life she was just four. But if the film had gone by reality's dates then her entire drive would've been born out of the death of........her goldfish.We are then thrust into action with Ed Mosbey (Rourke); Domino (Knightley) herself and would-be love interest Choco (Ramírez). During the scene, an American mother is pinned down via gunfire in her own caravan in the back end of nowhere as she pleads for her son's life to be spared. What a really misguided opening; presenting its three leads as nasty people who break into trailers, fire off weapons at innocents we don't know anything of and come close to shooting their pet dogs.The immediate feeling is of hatred toward the three leads, a feeling of 'No, why are you doing this? Why is this happening?' Bad seeds are planted and, wouldn't you know it, they stick. The film is painful to watch, excruciating even; as these three mug their way through the piece complete with supporting performances from actors known for playing characters in Beverly Hills 90210. Here is another daft post-modernist slant, people playing themselves and that 'sort of' Joker card being played again. Christopher Walken even pops up in a really stupid role that reeks of Robert Downey Jr's Natural Born Killers character.So as the film plods on and Domino is cast into Ed and Choco's gang, purely for her good looks I might add, it appears amidst the plot to do with fake driver's registration I.Ds or something that Choco and Domino may have feelings for one another. The problem is, as each performer is doing such a bad job in their respective character; there is no chemistry and no feeling between the two; the film isn't a love story so why even bother going down that road in the first place? Does anyone care about these two characters amidst all the fast edits and stuff blowing up? If there is any 'feeling' between Choco and Domino, it exists on such a small, tiny, minimalist scale that you have to ask why it's even included.So then the film feels the need to crank things up narrative-wise. We find out the reason for the fake I.Ds that are linked to someone else and a guy talks on a cell phone in a sound proof bubble. The sound proof bubble I can believe but how does he get his phone under the water and into the bubble in the first place without it becoming flooded? He must've swam really quickly double the speed of the film's fasted edit which means something in the region of .01 of a second. Yeah, sure. The film's story becomes both too complicated and just plain arbitrary before resorting to a really dumb climax in which more stuff blows up. Plus, there's a really distasteful scene to do with a wall chart full of new ethnicities and the film's comedy runs SO dry, that it has to resort to the "Jerry, Jerry!" chant whilst people are on a popular American talk show. When did we last laugh at "Jerry! Jerry!"? when we were, say, seven years old? I came away feeling sad and depressed at such a film's existence.
| 0
|
train_24214
|
The US appear to run the UK police who all run around armed to the teeth and did you know that CID officers change into uniform when they stop work and go down the pub! This has got to be one of the most unrealistic films with the worst portrayal of "real" UK police that has ever been foisted on the unsuspecting public. I can see that Mr Snipes might have needed the money to pay his back tax bill but what the heck a good actor like Charles Dance was doing in it is a mystery.Worse than the worse low budget "B" film of the 50's. An hour and a half of suicide and time I will never get back.Avoid it like the veritable plague.
| 0
|
train_9372
|
Red Rock West is one of those rare films that keeps you guessing the entire time as to what will happen next. Nicolas Cage is mistaken for a contract killer as he enters a small town trying to find work. Dennis Hopper is the bad guy and no one plays them better. Look for a brief appearance by country singing star Dwight Yoakam. This is a serious drama most of the time but there are some lighter moments. What matters is that you will enjoy this low budget but high quality effort!
| 1
|
train_15654
|
Look, there's nothing spectacularly offensive about this film, it's just boring. It's a typical rom-com with an ending you can see coming before you've seen so much as the trailer. The key difference is that the classic rom-coms tackle their stories with wit and a lack of pretension. This movie has no pretension but it really has no sense of movement, you feel as though you could get up and walk away at any moment. The production of the movie also has the feel of a debut movie made about fifteen years ago. I'd recommend re-watching a classic movie like When Harry Met Sally instead of this shallow imitation. Oh, one other BIG problem...no chemistry. If you're used to seeing Michael looking all cute as Vaughn in Alias, you're going to be seriously disappointed with the way they've made him look here.
| 0
|
train_8721
|
Disney (and the wonderful folks at PIXAR of course) offer a nice, humourous story combined with the best of computer animation. I admit that maybe the 'faces' of the bugs were a little more static than in 'Antz' and they only had four legs (in 'Antz' six...). But backgrounds were superb and animation was breathtaking. But let this be a lesson: it was not the computer who made it such a success : it was the man behind the machine, who added the nice little twists, which I missed in 'Antz'. Some highlights were of course the 'bloopers' at the end (So keep watching at the end, it's worth it!), which were highly amusing and original. The line 'Filmed entirely on location' was intended for the more attentive viewer.
| 1
|
train_8258
|
At a risk of sounding slightly sacrilegious, on first viewing I'm kind of inclined to put this right up on a par with 'Shaun of the Dead'. Now, given I view Simon Pegg as an unquestionable comedy genius, I realise this is a rather big claim. And to what extent you agree with that last statement may be a good preliminary gauge of whether 'Fido' will appeal to you.In a way the comedy picks up where 'Shaun' left off, except we're back in the original 1950s Living Dead-era stereotypical middle-American small town. The Zombie Wars are over and zombies themselves are becoming more well-adjusted, useful members of the community. This, so we're informed at the outset, is largely thanks to the scientific advances made by the good people at Zomcom - a nice play on romantic comedy perhaps? The beauty of the film lies in its dead-pan depiction of a respectable neighbourhood maintaining core values while making a place for zombies and the special hazards they pose. The charm and balance with which it does this is near enough perfect. Themes you might expect from a more mainstream kitsch comedy come through - the veneer of good clean living, keeping up appearances, repressed emotion, muddled parental values, social decorum and the plight of the alienated individual.It's a story told with happy heart and wide appeal that is brought to life vividly by the film's all-round strong cast. It's one of those works where it really shows through that everyone involved got a kick out of taking part. It's also fun imagining what Billy Connelly learning his script must have been like...So in conclusion, it is probable you will appreciate the humour of this film unless your father tried to eat you.
| 1
|
train_5564
|
The best Cheech & Chong movie so far!! Of all the Cheech and Chong this is most certain the best so far. I think I've seen them all about twelve times at least, and I love them all. But this is most definitely the best. Compared with the others this one covers a lot of themes and gives you a lot of good laughs. Part of the texts are still part of our language today, after 25 years. I hope that one day they can make another one, because they still are great comedians. I heard they are writing a new script so who knows... I guess these guys are the only ones who succeeded in making decent movies in this genre. I wonder if John Ashcroft ever watched one of them...
| 1
|
train_2486
|
It's hard to say anything about a movie like this because there isn't enough words to give this magnificent, stylish and unique film the veneration it unquestionably deserves. They should make this the official and only true real Hamlet -movie because all the previous films out of the same immortal spectacle are being overshadowed by Kenneth Branagh's "Hamlet".It's a perfect, complete version of the play, potent, massive, earthshaking first-class masterpiece Shakespeare would have been proud of. They've packed over a dozen of world-famous top actors in the same film and everyone of them is having one of the greatest performances of their career. Every moving and charming sequence leaves behind a comprehensive sense of satisfaction.The cameras embrace gracefully the enchanting coulisses. Branagh is phenomenal in the leading role. His sharp, irresistible performance is the only one of it's kind and will be permanently part of the glorious movie history. Every second in this presentation is feast for the movie lover from beginning to the very end. Branagh's version of "Hamlet" is among the ten best motion pictures ever.
| 1
|
train_17556
|
***SPOILERS*** Let's start with the "good" of this film--the serviceable acting of Cynthia Rothrock and Richard Norton. The rest of the acting is awful (this isn't aided by the atrocious script). The worst culprit is the villain, Buntao, the head of an Asian crime syndicate (played by Frans Tumbuan). I was laughing my head off as he was expressing his "fury" over having lost a bunch of money; horrid performance. Patrick Muldoon isn't much better, and his "it's a hostile takeover" line (that's the remainder of the title of this film) was delivered about as badly as one could do it. There are no other main characters, but no other actor/actress distinguished him/herself in this film. We next come to the plot. This should tell you all you need to know: In the original "Rage and Honor," Cynthia Rothrock, who plays Chris Fairchild, was a teacher in the inner city. Now, she's a C.I.A. agent (or was it some other governmental agency--sorry, but this film was so bad that I don't even remember). Hmmm...I can imagine what that C.I.A. application process was like. Interviewer: What past job experience do you have? Chris: I was a teacher. Interviewer: Okay; you're hired! I only give it a "2" because of some decent acting and a nice plot twist at the end (though we know that Tommy (Muldoon), the secret villain, will be caught).
| 0
|
train_11173
|
Ah, clichés, clichés, clichés; They're a main part of a wide variety of horror films.This one, has a lot of them.Still, it's Stephen King, one of the best masters of horror. This movie was really good, just TOO predictable. And what horror movie doesn't have stupid people? This one is overcrowded with retarded victims just practically begging for their life to be taken. Pet Semetary I found to be creepy a little. The way everything is set up was REALLY spooky, but not terrifying. For the most part, the acting was SOMEWHAT believable, the suspense wasn't that suspenseful, but the entertainment level is set at a major rank; My eyes were practically glued to the screen.All Stephen King fans must see this movie, but as for anyone else, expect an OKAY thriller.
| 1
|
train_16875
|
Less self-conscious and much less pretentious than GUTS OF A BEAUTY, this Kazuo Komizu gore flick is worth a look (at least once).Sleazy snapshotters escort wanna-be actresses/models to a remote house in the woods in order to sexually molest them. Unfortunately (for the horny boys), a long-schlonged demon, who lives in the woods, has already targeted the girls for fun.The thing even ends up having fun with the boys -- that's IF you consider beheadings, dismemberment and masturbation with severed limbs "fun".Once again, it all sounds better on paper than it looks and sounds on film.Just as Komizu mangled LIVING DEAD AT TOKYO BAY with his ineptitude, he also mangles this effort and is only saved by some audacious violence and some great white panty shots.Don't buy the hype, though, or you'll be sorely disappointed.
| 0
|
train_17817
|
For the initial 20 minutes or so (I was watching it on a PS2 so I've really no idea how long it took) Alienator sets up an interesting premise. I don't think I've seen a slasher movie with an alien from another planet as the baddie before. However, interest soon turns into stunned disbelief as you realise the 'alien' is a huge body-builder woman in a steel bikini. Yes, Alienator is patently ridiculous.Don't think I hold that against it. In the world of shlock-horror, patently ridiculous can often be a good sign. However, the blatant stupidity of its premise is all the movie really has going for it. Alienator is funny as hell, but it is also a shambolic suckfest of the highest order. Actors heap on failed attempts at seriousness, potentially genius lines of pure cheese dialogue are stumbled over with unnerving incompetence and the direction fails to sum up even one or two decent set-pieces. By the time the movie's finished you can barely see the original concept through the haystack of total tripe the team piled on it.Add to this the fact that the 'Alien' just kills people by vaporising them, as opposed to doing any 'slashing' as such and you have a giant throbbing heap of good ideas being left to rot. You'll laugh at Alienator, but AT it, not with it. If that's your thing then go ahead and check it out.
| 0
|
train_9800
|
THIS POST MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS :Although it was 5 years after the series ended and WB was currently working on Justice League, this animated movie is a welcome addition to the video library. Why? Well, if Mask of the Phantasm compliments the first 70 episodes of Batman: The Animated Series and SubZero compliments the 15 episodes of the Adventures of Batman and Robin, then Mystery of the Batwoman compliments the final 24 episodes of the Gotham Knights version of Batman. Kevin Conroy once again delivers a voice over performance that is nothing short of excellence and perfection. I admit I was a bit leery when I heard about Batwoman and all I could think about were the old 50's comics of Batman. But I was blown away by the Batwoman character, her look, her costume (which I assumed inspired Bruce Wayne to create the costume on Batman Beyond)and the fact that this movie keeps you guessing who Batwoman is all the way through. If you want to know who Batwoman is, then buy or rent the DVD. Barbara Gordon makes a cameo appearance and I think the writers were trying to hint that Bruce and Barbara had something going on between them like they did in Batman Beyond. Tim Drake appears as Robin, but his role is a small one and sadly, there is no sign of or mention of Dick Grayson alias Nightwing, which leads me to believe he has established himself in Bludhaven (his city in the comics).Of the three suspects for Batwoman, my favorite is Kathy Duquesne, who looks an awful lot like Halle Berry. Kelly Ripa did a great job as one of the other suspects. When it comes to the villains, I'm glad the Penguin was one of them, but I did not like the fact that they replaced Paul Williams with David Ogden Stiers. Pengy just didn't sound right. Same thing goes for Robin. The new guy did okay, but just as I was starting to get used to Matt Valencia, they replaced him. It's interesting to note that Kevin Michael Richardson, who voices Carlton Duquesne is now the voice of the Joker in "The Batman" series. And we finally see what Rupert Thorne looks like revamped since he didn't show up in the Gotham Knights episodes. The late John Vernon will be missed. Although I enjoyed Henry Silva as the voice of Bane, if he had to be replaced, they got the right man in the form of Hector Elizondo. I only wish they could have used Two Face, Riddler, or the scary new version of the Scarecrow.The musical score and especially the soft sounding intro were superb. I wish that was on a soundtrack and I especially enjoyed the beautiful and talented Cherie in the Iceberg Lounge along with her song, Betcha Neva. While some feel that this movie is weaker than the Mask of the Phantasm and Subzero, I find it just as strong and enjoyable as the rest, plus like I said earlier, it's a full length movie based off the Gotham Knights version of Batman, which I think gives a good balance. I would at least recommend renting this DVD first before buying it for those who might be leery of this movie, but personally, it's well worth the purchase. I give Mystery of the Batwoman a 9.
| 1
|
train_22193
|
The over-heated plot of "Bonjour tristesse" is taken from a juvenile first novel by Francoise Sagan, which became a best-seller, though God knows why. For teenagers wanting to get rid of a potential step-parent it may have a certain appeal. Don't be taken in by the fact that David Niven plays the playboy father and Deborah Kerr the step-mother-in- prospect. Unfortunately, too much rests on the frail shoulders of Jean Seberg. She's beautiful and easily fulfills the image of a spoiled teenager. The problem is that she can strike poses but she can't act. Anyone who saw her as Joan of Arc in Otto Preminger's St. Joan -- Seberg's first film -- knows she was incapable at 19 of carrying a film. This movie, also by Preminger, fulfills the "promise" of the first. It was her second movie; she was now 20. What was Preminger thinking? That Niven and Kerr could compensate for Seberg's lack of acting capacity? Not a chance? Seberg's character is at the center of the story and, pretty though she is, convincing though she may be physically as a 17 year old, she can't meet the emotional demands of the role. I don't know if she ever became a successful actress in her short life because she did not have an impact on my consciousness in her later pictures. But anyone who thinks this film is better than mediocre needs a taste check. In spite of Niven and Kerr, this remains a juvenile story executed in juvenile fashion by a beautiful young girl who badly needed acting lessons.
| 0
|
train_4
|
FUTZ is the only show preserved from the experimental theatre movement in New York in the 1960s (the origins of Off Off Broadway). Though it's not for everyone, it is a genuinely brilliant, darkly funny, even more often deeply disturbing tale about love, sex, personal liberty, and revenge, a serious morality tale even more relevant now in a time when Congress wants to outlaw gay marriage by trashing our Constitution. The story is not about being gay, though -- it's about love and sex that don't conform to social norms and therefore must be removed through violence and hate. On the surface, it tells the story of a man who falls in love with a pig, but like any great fable, it's not really about animals, it's about something bigger -- stifling conformity in America.The stage version won international acclaim in its original production, it toured the U.S. and Europe, and with others of its kind, influenced almost all theatre that came after it. Luckily, we have preserved here the show pretty much as it was originally conceived, with the original cast and original director, Tom O'Horgan (who also directed HAIR and Jesus Christ Superstar on Broadway).This is not a mainstream, easy-to-take, studio film -- this is an aggressive, unsettling, glorious, deeply emotional, wildly imaginative piece of storytelling that you'll never forget. And it just might change the way you see the world...
| 1
|
train_1312
|
Chalk this one up in the win column, this was a superb movie. The acting performances were great and the script was equally great.Helen Hunt was magnificent as the Riverside police officer Gina Pulasky. Gina was a complex character. She was a rookie cop with the Riverside Police Dept. She ended up in an affair with a coworker that she knew had a wife and kids, all the while she took on the dangerous task of going undercover to catch a serial killer. Jeff Fahey (the Ray Liotta look alike) did a bang up job as the confused, often stammering, police officer that had an affair with Gina. He was stoic as an officer, but he was quite the opposite when it came to dealing with his feelings and his extra-marital affair.Steven Weber, most notably from the sitcom "Wings", did a nice job as the quiet, meek, underachieving sociopath. On the surface, he was an innocent loser, but beneath the surface lied a cold hearted killer. Weber really took on the persona of a childlike young adult with an insatiable thirst to kill young boys.The entire movie was spectacular. Each scene, each verbal exchange let us know more and more about the characters. The production team did a phenomenal job with condensing days, if not weeks worth of events into a 90 minute movie. This movie was a good example of doing a lot with little.
| 1
|
train_21067
|
When I rented this movie, I had very low expectations......but when I saw it, I realized that the movie was less (a lot less) than what I expected. The actors were bad (the doctor's wife was one of the worst), the story was so stupid...it could work for a Disney movie (except for the murders), but this one is not a comedy, it is a laughable masterpiece of stupidity. The title is well chosen except for one thing: they could add stupid movie after Dead Husbands! I give it 0 and a half out of 5.
| 0
|
train_532
|
Enchanting, romantic, innovative, and funny. The vision of this extraordinary film is almost unparalleled, exceeding better known "death romances" such as Ghost. While we know intuitively that Peter and June will find ultimate happiness at the end of that long-long stairway, the joy is in the journey. The moral of the tale, of course, is timeless: love conquers all. But the struggle to achieve that victory is played in a celestial arena of sweeping vision and gripping grandeur. With more than 500 suitably clad extras portraying various ages and cultures, the directors' vision of heaven remains memorable six decades later, far into the CGI era.Yet for all the cosmic scale, Powell and Pressburger knew an essential truth: the best story is told at the smallest level. The wonderfully, determinedly romantic aspect of "Stairway" is captured with ultimate simplicity: June's teardrop, preserved on a rose petal. This film, like the story and the set itself, is one for the ages.
| 1
|
train_20396
|
Not sure why this movie seems to have gotten such rave reviews.While watching "Bang" one night on TV, I found myself bored by the nonsensical, random plot which was occurring on screen. The entire movie seems to be nothing more than an exercise in meaningless, artsy-fartsy self-indulgence on the part of the filmmaker. The fact that the director/writer goes by a one name moniker only reinforces this sense of pretentiousness. Those interested in indie flicks would be better off looking for something better written and dare I say, more entertaining than this complete waste of time.
| 0
|
train_7956
|
This is simply a classic film where the human voices coming from the animals are really what they're thoughts are. I don't know whether my video copy has a scene missing but it never shows how the dogs got out of the pit. It also shows an animals survival instinct and tracking abilities.Put humans in the same position ant the helicopters would be out. For once an original film is improved by a remake as the voice-over for the first has been removed. Only the use of animals can work in a film of this kind because using people would have had to spice out the story by turning it into murder,proving that,after all,animals are more interesting than people
| 1
|
train_5167
|
I have to say the worst part of the movie was the first half hour. I was really confused about who was who. For example, Bill Paxson's character had long hair and was wearing a jacket. Then, when all the males arrived at camp, it turned out there was a character who looked like Bill Paxson, but wasn't. I said where's Bill Paxson? Then, there was a guy with his girlfriend. He said she was 21. This was supposed to be a 20-year reunion of the camp director's (Alan Arkin) most memorable. Later on, this same girl was interacting and talking about her camp experiences. That made no sense. She would have been one years old. That said, the movie turned out to be pretty good. Kevin Pollak was the nice guy who was always being teased. One guy was a complete narcissist, and ended up losing his beautiful girlfriend. Alan Arkin was interesting as an old-style camp director, who admits that he has grown out of touch with modern youth. The best part was that none of the grown-up campers were successes in life. None of them had very great careers. This seemed very real life. The movie was compared to The Big Chill. In some ways it wasn't as exciting as the Big Chill, but it was a lot more realistic. So, even though the beginning is not promising, the movie ended up turning into a pretty good one.
| 1
|
train_23556
|
I was so disappointed in this movie. I don't know much about the true story, so I was eager to see it play out on film and educate myself about a little slice of history. With such a powerful true story and great actors it seemed like a surefire combination. Well, somewhere the screenplay failed them. It was so scattered - is this movie about his childhood? his love life? his own disability? his speaking ability? his passion for the disabled? I'm sure there is a way to incorporate all of those things into a good story, but this movie wasn't it. I was left cold watching characters that were unlikable not because of their disabilities, but because of their personalities. Other small gripes: 1. The heavy-handed soundtrack. It's the seventies - WE GET IT ALREADY! 2. If he's such a phenomenal public speaker, why weren't we treated to more than a snippet here and there - and even then mostly in montages?
| 0
|
train_5646
|
Recently when i was shopping, i saw the box-set of Americian Gothic, and i thought 'I remember that!' I used to set my alarm to get back up & watch this when it was on CH 4 in 1996 at 1.30am (i was 14). I remember it mostly because it was really scary and weird, no person could ever be as frightening as Lucas Buck (with a B!!) No one ever was anyway. What annoyed me though was they did the same thing to the box-set as when on TV. Episodes in funny order, I kept thinking when does Dr Matt leave??? - they made it so confusing. However this is not the writers, producers or directors fault (its TV people in background the money makers They still do the same - Just look at shows like Carnivale and Farscape they don't like originality in studios!!!!!)To finish - If you've not seen this and you call yourself a Sci-Fi Fantasy, Horror, supernatural drama..Fan = YOU MUST. They even said the same in SFX when reviewing the box-set.
| 1
|
train_7509
|
THE NOTORIOUS BETTIE PAGE Written by Mary Harron & Guinevere Turner Directed by Mary HarronHow do you define a person who has always been between two worlds, one of presumed sin and one of supposed redemption? Especially when that person eventually succumbed to a split personality disorder in her latter years as if to demonstrate her own point. If you're director Mary Harron, you don't shy away from showing the push/pull nature of THE NOTORIOUS BETTIE PAGE. You allow the character to drift back and forth between the healing forgiveness of the power of God and the church and the seductive illusion of control and dominance afforded to Page during her years as a pinup model. By doing so, audiences are offered a complex character that is propelled forward by a desire to leave her difficult past with a naive enjoyment in others' lust for her and a struggle to reconcile her image in the eyes of God. Come the right time, it will no longer matter how many eyes are on her because there is only one pair that counts.Shot mostly in black and white (with some unnecessary bursts of color), THE NOTORIOUS BETTIE PAGE is at times a light, humorous comedy, making the film an enjoyable experience and also one that pokes fun at how seriously people believe in the corruption of pornography. But the delicate hand of the director is more palpably felt during Page's times of despair. Harron is a sensitive, considerate director who does not throw Page's numerous and devastating blows of abuse in the face of her viewer. Instead, she allows the surprisingly effective Gretchen Moll, who plays the title role, the chance to hammer the pain of her character into the viewer with fear in her eyes, exhaustion is her cries and shame on her skin. Whereas most directors, perhaps most male directors, would find it essential to show the heroine in painful positions in order to draw a link between the kinds of atrocities that were put upon her and where her life took her, Harron has too much compassion for her character, her actress and her audience. From fragility, Page learns to trust people again and as more and more photographers fall in love with her image, the more she falls in love with their admiration and the control she has over the gaze. By the time her poses cross over into the realm of soft-core S&M, she has found a way to combine her need to be respected with the objectification she has been accustomed to her whole life.Mary Harron's Bettie Page is a woman who yearns for control over her life and destiny, yet ultimately is always being told where to stand, how to smile and what to wear. When she finally realizes that none of her choices have been her own, she chooses to embrace God and preach his word to those who will listen. The true sadness behind this most important decision is that she is still letting someone else guide her blindly; she just has more faith that this direction will be better for her soul.
| 1
|
train_14986
|
What happens when an army of wetbacks, towelheads, and Godless Eastern European commies gather their forces south of the border? Gary Busey kicks their butts, of course. Another laughable example of Reagan-era cultural fallout, Bulletproof wastes a decent supporting cast headed by L Q Jones and Thalmus Rasulala.
| 0
|
train_15731
|
This movie seems to have a lot of people saying it is one of the most brutal of all time. After having just viewed it, I can say it does not live up to those claims.The idea of the movie is indeed demented. But overall, the execution wasn't at all cringe worthy. Even the final scene (the eyeball thing) isn't really that nasty. I was expecting something insane, instead it was of lower quality than gore put forth on films like the ultra low budget Violent Sh!t.Any one wanting to see an actual movie will be disappointed, since there is no story whatsoever (though surely most people know this). Gore fans will be disappointed since, contrary to belief, the blood and guts here are few and far between. Not to mention the actress playing the victim might be one of the worst in history.Regardless of what people say, this movie isn't that shocking, it just plain all out sucks. Avoid it.
| 0
|
train_3237
|
Following my experience of Finland for slightly more than a week, I'd say this movie depicts the nature of the Finnish society very accurately. Especially the young-couple-with-a-baby-having-serious-issues phenomenon is very familiar to me, as I witnessed the exact same thing in person when I was in Finland. The relationships and problems of people, fragility of the marriage institution, the drinking culture, unemployment and the ascending money problem, all are very well put, without any subjectivity or exaggeration.There are some points in the film that are not necessarily easy to comprehend and tie to each other, but the joint big picture is nonetheless rewarding. Not each one of the short stories is exciting or profound, but as said above, the big picture does not fail to deliver the feeling of "real life" and captivate the viewer. I happen to think in a calm moment: What is happening in the lives of all these people on the street? Well, this is what is happening. Movies like this are good to feed your imaginative power. It would be safe to assume this film could apply to the life in many countries, but it particularly reflects Finland as it is, and pretty damn well.One comment about the acting: Being the fan of Finnish cinema I am, I've never seen any of these actors on any other movie, but I found the acting in this feature right next door to perfect overall. Maybe not a masterpiece, but a very good try by the entire crew. I'll be keeping an eye on the future releases of the director and the cast..7,5 / 10
| 1
|
train_15687
|
From the Star of "MITCHELL", From the director of "Joysticks" and "Angel's Revenge"!!! These are taglines that would normally keep me from seeing this movie. And the worst part is that all the above mentioned statements are true!!! Ugghhh... Joe Don Baker eats every other five minutes in this film. It's like a bad remake of "Coogan's Bluff"
| 0
|
train_16755
|
the movie opens with a beautiful lady in a tattered white gown running through a stereotypical eastern european town. we know she's being followed by something, because she keeps looking behind her. and soon we see she's being chased by a mysterious man in a black trenchcoat. then we realize that the man is actually the vampire hunter and he is after her. but look is that her reflection in the store window??? no its just her identical twin vampire! but unfortunately they both get it.after this brilliant and amazingly fun throwback to the old hammer films of the 60's and 70's (in the credits the twins are listed as the twins of evil, which of course is the name of the final instalment in hammer's karnstein trilogy), the plot pretty much dies.What little plot there is involves dracula (who conveniently changes his appearance each time he is reborn, so the producer doesn't have to rehire the same dracula) coming to a morgue, the med students realizing he's undead and thinking....wow what an opportunity, maybe i'll just disregard all those movies that say that drinking vampire blood turns you into a vampire and use the vampire's blood to find a cure for our jerk friend's ailment. obviously this is a mistake and everyone becomes a vampire.A new concept but pulled off excruciatingly badly. The movie keeps setting up wonderful situations and refuses to do anything with them.For example the med students attempt to bring drac back to life by placing him in a bathtub filled with blood in a secluded run down country mansion. The house itself is scary enough to be the center of the film, but do we stay there? no because they decide to take the vampire to an abandoned swimming pool. sigh. This movie has a real problem with "homages" as i mentioned before the opening scene is straight out of hammer, and this house scene would have been perfect for a hammer-like movie, but the movie rapidly switches gears and changes to a medical horror.The other problem is that they introduce so many characters it is almost impossible to feel sorry for any of them. There are the med students and their wheelchair bound professor-type "friend" the med students are all: arrogant, boring, money hungry, and stupid. how they made it to med school at all amazes me, unless the med school had to meet its muscle bound hunk/big breast quota. and then there is the vampire hunter who remains mysterious through the movie. hey i can respect that but it would be nice if they didn't set it up like the movie would be about him. then you have random priests, cops, and science types. so many people are introduced and then quickly forgotten about until they need that person to either save the day or jump out for a cheap scare that it becomes quickly tedious.Basically this is a lazy movie. no real scares, just a few predictable jump scares. The set up for these is so elaborate it is hilarious. for examp le the bathtub full of blood. it is so obvious that drac is going to pop out of the murky blood. and yet we have to wait far too long to get to the inevitable jump scare. after this he kills one of the dumber and larger breasted med students. we all know she's going to become one of the undead. but what do the others do? bury her in a shallow grave near the house. sigh, so you know who will jump out at you when the cops show up at the house..........Oh well.Maybe someone will get the hint that it is impossible to make a scary vampire movie and just go for atmospheric, and then we will end up with an entire movie that is as good as the opening scene.
| 0
|
train_23322
|
Jane Eyre_ is one of the greatest novels in the English language and this screenwriter should of read it. I hate it when writers use Spark notes for what a novel is all about. This movie is unbearable to watch if you have read the book.The whole 'red room' is so down played that I wonder why they even bother to put it in. In the book the 'red room' is foreshadowing for the WHOLE story and the rest of Jane's life. Helen Burns is treated so badly in the movie I'm sure she was happy to die and leave early. In the book she is one of the most compelling characters and she was not the red head. The whole Christian theme is missing from her life and the rest of the movie.Do yourself a favor and miss this movie and read the story as Charlotte Bronte masterfully told it.
| 0
|
train_2876
|
The story of Cinderella is one of my favorites from Charles Perrault, with Sleeping Beauty which was also made into a Disney film in 1959; this film is a sweet, enchanting masterpiece from Disney.The film has a great soundtrack; that's one I like in a movie is a very good soundtrack, and I love the songs too; my favorite song is the romantic "So This is Love." I love the mice from the film too, they are cute. My favorite scene is the scene after the narration, the little birds tried to wake Cinderella up in the morning; I also love it when Cinderella's animal friends (the mice and birds) fix up Cinderella's birth-mother's dress, so she could go to the ball...until Drizella & Anastasia tore it to bits, the b****es!
| 1
|
train_14688
|
Following a car accident, a mad scientist(Jason Evers) keeps the head of his fiancee(Virgina Leith)alive. He then goes on the prowl looking for the perfect body to make her whole again. Pretty lame all the way around, nothing redeeming here. Also in the cast are: Leslie Daniels, Bonnie Sharie and Bruce Brighton. Someone should have helped put this one out of its misery. Let it die.
| 0
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.