id
stringlengths 7
11
| text
stringlengths 52
10.2k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|---|
train_16361
|
I'm not a big fan of rom/coms at the best of times. A few have been quite good (check of Dream for an Insomniac), but this one is just more of the same but less.With a running time of 100min, I expect more than 1 laugh every 30mins. The only real belly laugh are when male strangers and friends instinctivly help out Lee's character.All I can say is AVOID. I gaurentee there is at least 10 other movies on the shelf that deserve you $$3 of out 10 (And only cos I'm a big Lee fan)
| 0
|
train_16779
|
I found a DVD of "I Dream Of Jeanie" in the $1.00 bin at Wal-Mart. When I saw that it was the "story of Stephen Foster", being a musician and music educator, I had to see it. I had no idea what year it was made for it did not say on the cover, just that it was a remake of 1939's "Sewanee River". Bill Shirley's portrayal of the composer is sometimes painful, sometimes laughable. The man has NO testosterone and is a wimp all the way through! I have a difficult time believing Stephen Foster thought music publishers were doing him a favor by publishing his songs...without paying him for them! In addition to that ridiculous notion, there is a nearly 20 minute segment of Ray Middleton and his black-faced "Christy Minstrels" performing Stephen Foster's songs that was difficult to watch, to say the least. I can hardly believe anyone would consider this movie appropriate to resurrect in our current time. It is an embarrassment and should remain forgotten. Fortunately, Stephen Foster's songs will NEVER be forgotten....also, Eileen Christy's portrayal of Jeanie was certainly the highest point in this lowest point of Hollywood history.
| 0
|
train_14964
|
Loved Part One, The Impossible Planet, but whoops, what a disappointment part two 'The Satan Pit' is. The cliffhanger of something apparently rising out of the pit was - nothing coming out of the pit. Then ages spent crawling round air vents to pad out the story, the Beast a roaring thing empty of intelligence, so no Doctor/villain confrontation I'd been anticipating. The TARDIS is somehow inside the pit despite the pit not being open till long after the TARDIS fell through the planet crust. And finally another ready made solution which existed for no logical reason - I mean, why not plunge the Beast into the Hole as soon as the pit opened? Why not plunge him in all those years ago instead of imprisoning him anyway. Why not - I could go on but I've lost interest...
| 0
|
train_7186
|
There have been a lot of Zorro films made over the decades, but it's a shame that one of the best is probably one of the least seen.Zorro's Fighting Legion is a bit different from other Zorro films. First off, it's a Republic serial in 12 chapters. And this time, Zorro is not played by a top studio star like Douglas Fairbanks, Tyrone Power or Antonio Banderas but instead by workman-like actor Reed Hadley. While Hadley does not cast as strong a presence over the proceedings as those other, he does an adequate job, helped by the fact that he is not the sole hero here; as the title implies, he has a fighting legion to call upon.Another big difference is that the setting isn't California. The story here take place in central Mexico in 1824 where a man posing as a living god incites the indigenous Indian population and a band of outlaws to aid him in his plan to overthrow the newly established Mexican Republic. Something, Zorro, and a handful of followers plan to do anything they can to stop.Don't get me wrong, there is at least one incredibly cheesy moment per episode, from corny "twang" bow sound effects to ludicrous acting. But overall, this represents one of the best Republic serials of all time, and probably the best Zorro one.The plot is stronger than most serials and never becomes incomprehensible or meandering., and there's lots of great action - fans of the Indiana Jones movies will notice MANY bits borrowed from this serial.
| 1
|
train_8595
|
I can admit that the screenplay isn't very good, and that it has some slow parts, but all of you critics of this movie need to learn how to have some fun. First of all, the performances are great (Michael Douglas, Kim Basinger, Kiefer Sutherland, and Eva Longoria. Michael Douglas proves he has still got it, and Kim Basinger plays a very interesting character as the cheating wife. Kiefer Sutherland and Eva Longoria, play the dynamic duo, both adding their incredible talent to the pot. And second of all, this movie is the most fun I have had in years in a Theodore. Its plain and simple, if you want to go to the movies, and have a lot of fun see, The Sentinel.
| 1
|
train_7609
|
An absolutely brilliant show. The second season began where the first ended, with much mystery. Suspense in most, if not all episodes and mystery everywhere. One that made me think and think again. It's truly amazing how the writer can come out with all the connections and link all the characters together and combine all these elements to make the lives of the characters in the show so meaningful. Never fail to excites and I am looking forward to the new season. Hopefully more secrets will be reveal and at the same time, more mystery to be solved. Good selection of cast too for this show, fit the characters perfectly. Really can't wait to finally discover the secret. Hopefully all the hype won't spoil the ending.
| 1
|
train_12691
|
... to not live in Montana and especially not to live there at the end of the 19th century."A river runs through it" certainly is a well made movie from a cineastic stand-point. Great landscapes, Redford acting well.Unfortunately, the story is bad (if there is a story at all).I felt sorry for the narrator / author, who is as dry, narrow-minded a character as his father, a preacher. Being driven, not driving his own life, he is left to watch his brother, who is also caged in the small town environment, losing his life. The author never even comes close to undestand his brother's motivations, but at least realizes, that he is lacking the slightest amount of homour / fun. All there is, is fly-fishing, where he follows even as an old man the style of his father.The end is not surprising, it is forseeable from the very beginning.Definitely NOT a must-see (3 / 10)
| 0
|
train_17663
|
Ridiculous fluff, that compounds its error by trying to have meaning. Joan, this time as a congresswoman, Agatha Reed, chairwoman of a committee dedicated to "investigating the high cost of food." Says Congresswoman Reed, "The housewife has been getting it in the neck too long. I'm going to keep fighting long enough so that the American family can take a vacation once a year, see a movie every week and feed an occasional peanut to an elephant." She's all business, but becomes all gushy when she is awarded an honorary degree from Good Hope College, where she was expelled for the crime of having stayed out all night (the parallel to Joan's real life is unmistakable here, as it is in all Joan Movies). The degree causes much consternation on campus ("That would make it the most broad-minded institution in the history of education!") but Joan is unaware of this as she arrives. The college president, Jim Merrill, played by Robert Young, at his handsomest, happens to be Joan's former teacher and lover. It was with *him* that she spent the night out, all those years ago, but Joan felt it was better to just disappear rather than try and explain to the skeptical college that they were about to be married. Naturally, this high-profile event will be covered by *Life* magazine and who does the photographer turn out to be? Yet another of Joan's old lovers this one, she hung out with in China "during the war", and he thinks Joan might be headed for trouble with her old flame. Eve Arden, playing Joan's assistant, "Woodie," is at her butchest and most smart-alecky in this movie with her flippant and unnecessary remarks that would make you dismiss her from her job, if you didn't like her so much. But you not only like Eve in this, as in all her roles, you adore her. She is so droll and no-nonsense, you'd like to pay her just to hang around and be one of the boys. When Joan cries upon arriving at her alma mater, Eve tells her it "looks fierce." But Joan says that maybe others only see a collection of buildings, she, Joan, sees youth herself at 18 "eager, expectant a little frightened, asking 'What is life? What am I?'" But, of course, if we actually go into depth about Joan at 18, the truth may be a little different. For me, this is the major problem in watching any Joan movie. You can call her characters whatever you want to, but it's always all Joan, all the time. So, since what we're always seeing is Joan being herself, it's easy to dispense with character's names. It's just that it gets confusing when Joan tries to tell us something patently untrue, like her description of herself at 18 when we know that at 18, Joan had already been around the block several times. Many men would have described her as eager, and as far as being expectant, she had already had several abortions at this point. But that's a personal problem, and I digress, but I simply wanted to explain why I say things such as "
and then Joan does
" this or that, or "We see Joan as..." when we are not literally watching a home movie.There is an unintentionally hilarious moment in which Joan is given the Clara Bow doll that she left behind in college quick arithmetic tells us that Joan and Clara were contemporaries and this is a transparent ploy to make us believe Joan is much younger than she actually looks. It fails. What also fails is an attempt at early-50s political correctness. In the story, Joan has written a book about free speech and made a film (no, not the one about the plumber), and she attracts the attention of an early 50s campus radical, Dr. Pitt, who is about to be fired for his views, which are shockingly similar to Joan's. This is where the movie mysteriously becomes a morality tale a weak one, to be sure, but perhaps the only thing that keeps it from sliding into oblivion.
| 0
|
train_7054
|
I thought this movie was a lot better than most movie critics are giving it credit for. Though it has its confusing parts of the plot, it doesn't greatly interfere with your understanding of the movie. That being said, If you're not open to more liberal political ideas, then this probably isn't the movie for you. I thought all the actors in the movie were outstanding. Each character has their funny moments and the audience at the Tribeca Film Festival was laughing throughout the whole thing. I thought the satire was a tad over the top in one particular area, but that's intentionally done. John Cusack is right in that although it's set in the future, it really makes you see the present.
| 1
|
train_17375
|
My grandmother took me and my sister out to see this movie when it came out in theaters back in 1998, and so we happily bought the tickets, the popcorn and soda, and walked right in to the theater and sat down to watch the movie. When it was over, the audience didn't applauded strongly, I remember that I heard a few people say that they didn't like it at all, I didn't like it, I thought that it was rather stupid, and not worth seeing. Eddie Murphy was hysterical in this, but apart from him, the whole movie was bad, I rarely laughed at the parts in this, I also remembered that the other people in the theater almost hardly even laughed. And what I really thought was bad was making the animals talk, because talking animals only exist in cartoons, in live action movies, they are totally a mutt! I said that apart from Eddie Murphy's hysterical twist he brings in, this movie is not worth watching, it is rather stupid.I have seen Eddie Murphy in several of movies and I thought that he was funny in those, I have just said that he was the only funny part of this movie, I also have not seen Eddie Murphy in the really "great" movie, The Adventures of Pluto Nash. This movie is not a movie that I would really recommend that you see, because apart from Eddie Murphy, you probably are not going to like this, especially because of a lot the the talking animals in it! I'll give this movie a rating of 3 stars out of a possible 10 stars.
| 0
|
train_24934
|
In 1987, John Hughes wrote and directed 'Planes, Trains and Automobiles', which was a hilarious and poignant comedy the best thing he's ever done. Ten years on he's reduced to again recycling the plot of 'Home Alone' in this second sequel, which is not connected to the other films but is equally uninspired and sadistic. The four crooks that's right, four! And one of them is a girl! Congratulations, Hughes, for introducing this revolutionary change to the series! are electrocuted with metal chairs, brained with barbells and blinded with paint, ha ha ha haaaaaaaa ha, while the new kid is even less charming than Culkin. You'd think that the departure of almost all the key players from the first two films would stop Hughes from fossilising the same old routines, but the only surprise is that not even he turned up for 'Home Alone 4'.
| 0
|
train_12289
|
Before all, I'd like to point out that I have not read the book, so there was no chance I'd be disappointed in that aspect. The major flaw I spotted was historical detail, with several cars, trains, clothes, etc. I think don´t belong at that time.***Possible spoiler*****The technical aspect of the film is ok, nothing to brag about. But the acting, I think, was terrific. I don't have no experience in acting, still I can't believe how people can consider this terrible! Maybe they've only seen two movies (ever), and the other one must have been very good indeed!I specially liked Jeremy Irons, and really understood his character, someone who crawled up the social ladder with very hard work, then fights against those who would take his life's work from him, only he gets so involved in this fight, he doesn't realize reason is no longer at his side, and he ends up a beaten, disappointed man. Irons made this so believable, I sympathized with the character despite his brutality.After Jeremy Irons, Winona Ryder is also wonderful as a romantic young women, who is drawn into the revolutionary ideals by her boyfriend (Banderas, he had an under-developed part, I think), and Glenn Close was also very good. Meryl Streep had an average performance, it was not bad, just not up to the standards of the other actors. Watch out for Miguel Guilherme, a fine Portuguese actor, between so many stars.In contrast to today's movies, here only the interpretations, only people matter, but at the same time, it is not a pretensious film, too worried trying to be intellectual. The best proof I really liked it, I'm writing a review 7 years later.
| 1
|
train_11110
|
I can't add an awful lot to the positive reviews already on here - great acting, balanced writing, multi-faceted characters, a great anti-hero in Tony, great commentary on millennial American life. The integral use of psychiatry coupled with Tony's mother issues are especially fresh and humorous. Several other characters add a lot of depth - Hesh's interesting history as an outsider muscling in, Ralphie's total irredeemable viciousness, Chris' dual desires in life, and so on.I have to dig into some of the criticisms however, especially the 'it glorifies violence/belittles Italian-Americans' one.Most of the writers and actors are Italian-American, would they attack themselves? There are several positive Italian-American characters - Artie Bucco the chef, Dr. Melfi and her family and the Cusamanos next door to the Sopranos. Indeed, Dr Melfi's ex-husband notes in season 1 that only a tiny minority of Italian-Americans have ever had Mob connections (certainly smaller than the proportion of African-Americans involved in crime, dare I say it. In both cases poverty and lack of opportunity are the biggest causes).Most of the characters don't really choose the life they have; family background or circumstances largely corner them into it. Outsiders (even of Italian stock) who attempt to integrate into it usually meet distressing ends - Matthew and his friend in season 2, for example. If you criticise this show, I assume Frasier made you want to be a psychiatrist, or Will & Grace made you want to go homosexual? Presumably you won't listen to rap music that discusses gangs, or r'n'b which discusses promiscuity, or rock music which discusses drugs (or any other combination)? People aren't as stupid as some of you make out....Not everything is perfect however. A lot of characters have only appeared once, when by all logic they should have been seen or at least mentioned in previous episodes - Tracee the dancer, Meadow's friend Ally, Uncle Junior's ladyfriend (supposedly for 20 years until they split in season 1).
| 1
|
train_20011
|
This was one of the most ridiculous and badly directed movies I've seen in a very long time. I've never liked Spike Lee, but thought I'd give this one a try: bad mistake. The movie is supposed to show how the Son of Sam real life murders affected a neighborhood in the summer of 1977; what it really did was center around the most boring characters that I doubt anyone cared for as far as their drug problems, marriage problems, and so on, etc. The scenes that depict the murders are just that, and nothing more; a shooting and then it's back to Saturday Night Fever! What's even more ridiculous is Spike Lee's choice to show up as a reporter in the movie: Spike, trust me, you're no Hitchcock, stay out of the movies, it makes them even worse off. The most silly scene had to be the dog speaking in a goofy voice, which was depicted in a scene before it where it was supposed to have been shot??? Spike, what were you thinking when you made this film? Not thinking at all is my guess. People who think they'll see a crime drama, take my advice and do not waste your time or money on this loser. You're better off watching Jerry Springer in this case! Waste of film, I gave it a 1 out of 10: awful dud.
| 0
|
train_13773
|
I have two good things to say about this film: the scenery is beautiful and Peter Falk gives a good performance (considering what he had to work with in terms of dialog and direction). However, that said, I found this film extremely tiresome. Watching paint dry would have been more entertaining. It seemed much longer than 97 minutes. Beginning with opening sequence, where everyone is talking over each other and Paul Reiser is repeating everything that's said to him on the phone, the movie is annoying. The film is filled with clichés and shtick, not to mention endless incidents of audible flatulence by Falk. Also, the director seems to have had difficulty deciding whether to aim for laughs or tears. There are some sequences that are touching, but they're all played for laughs. If schmaltzy, sentimental, and "cute" appeal to you, you'll love it. But if you were hoping for something with more substance, see a different movie.
| 0
|
train_24063
|
This Italian semi-horror movie starts out very much like a soft core porn movie and turns into a mystery that has a few to many loose ends to be good, that and the fact it is rather dull just makes this film rather unwatchable for my tastes. The only thing really worth watching are the many boobs spread throughout the film. The story has a guy who at the beginning of the movie luring girls to his castle where he proceeds to take them to his dungeon, go berserk and seemingly kill them. They show the nudity, but they never really show the murders at this point in the film. Then the guy finds a nice red head at a party and proceeds to make out with her and marry her. He has a thing for red heads you see as his beloved former wife Evelyn was also one, she also died under circumstances that must have not been the viewing audience's business. After a lot of talky scenes murders start to take place involving snakes, foxes and such. At this point it is easy enough to figure out who is responsible for the murders and what the motive is then you have a nonsensical ending where everything wraps up not so nicely. This movie just did not work for me, it left me with to many questions and the last third of the film just did not have the boobs of the first two thirds of the film. Explaining Evelyn's death would have helped the film as would have some sort of ending where Evelyn did rise from the grave. Granted the title is not totally misleading as she did sort of leave the grave, just not under her own power. The gore is very light for the most part as there is a scene with the foxes and a scene at the end with quite a bit of blood too. I just thought for the most part this movie was a tad dull.
| 0
|
train_18362
|
Well to answer one persons's question of "why doesn't anyone remember this film?" it's because really,not that many people saw it in 1978 and it's not been shown much on TV since. (If it's on video that'd be news to me!) Even in the era of sometimes mindless comedies that was the '70s,movie-goers had the smarts to avoid this film. Unless they love Billy Crytal,Paul Lynde or Joan Rivers "that" much! Paul Lynde was funnier on "Bewitched" or "Hollywood Squares" than here. Joan Rivers at this time in her career was getting laughs making cruel jokes about singer Karen Carpenter's lack of weight! Har-har Joan! It also seems like every "somewhat" famous name from the era is in the cast. (Most surprising is Doris Roberts later of "Everybody Loves Raymond".)Anyhow,a somewhat good idea for a storyline,a man getting pregnant instead of the woman goes to waste here. With help from a male friend Crystal gets set up with a hooker to finally lose his virginity but because she was "on top" instead of him,he gets pregnant! (A commentary on women taking positions of power away from men).Crystal's stomach grows,he goes through all the female emotions and related feelings. Unfortunately,he is now a socially misunderstood outcast! He's attacked by a mob who wants him rubbed out (I guess).He's forced to go into seclusion to have his baby...in a barn. Or if you will,a manger (God only knows where it may have exited from! Ewwww!) It turns out (no shock here) to be a girl! Everything else about this movie is worthless and forgettable,the humor is high school level or less.2 stars for a good idea and a few good touching & relevant moments w/ Billy Crystal. Ignore the rest of Rabitt Test,it flunks big time!I can't believe Roddy McDowell signed on either! (END)
| 0
|
train_22281
|
I don't think I'm too far off base saying that this is possibly the worst movie I've ever seen. I've been working on a list of my favorite war movies: "The Longest Day," "To Hell and Back," "Bridge on the River Kwai," (all black and white) which all have good plots, rich characters and great acting. I've seen better dialog and acting in student-written high school one act plays. The plot, however isn't a bad premise - just poorly implemented. It's kind of like a traffic accident, though, I couldn't seem to turn it off! A movie doesn't need big money or great sets i.e. "Twelve Angry Men" and "Lifeboat" to be good... so budget is no excuse. What were they thinking?
| 0
|
train_22149
|
Who were they kidding with this? There was just too much in this film that was hard to digest. Right from when Arjun (Ajay Devgan) unknowingly wishes death on his father to when he arrives in London with his uncle(played by Om Puri) only to abandon him minutes later. The only problem with that theory is that anybody who has ever passed through London Heathrow knows that such a fête would be impossible to pull off and especially not by an Indian. But the film problems do not end there, there's the issue of the two main leads (Salman Khan and Ajay Devgan) passing as rock-stars on the verge of achieving their dreams. I mean yeah we saw success come to Susan Boyle (a woman in the UK achieving her dreams after age 50) but that was a rare case. It was really hard for me to suspend my disbelief because I felt that the casting of Salman and Ajay was just ill-conceived. They would never cast Madhuri Dixit and Sridevi to play the same roles so why should we be forced to watch Ajay Devgan and Salman Khan (men well into their 40s) prance around desperately trying to hang on to their 20s? Let's not even talk about the most self-conscious actress on screen today, Asin. This is her second film (that I have seen) and she is just hopeless as an actress, so conscious of her looks that she only concerns herself with looking good and voguing for the camera rather than giving in a good acting performance. It's just hard to believe that she turned down all those other movie roles to star in this fluff and then be so fluffy as an actress, nothing to write home about at all. And to top all of that, the film just boringly dragged on. There's nothing special about it at all, trust me you will predict every clichéd thing that is going to happen in it.
| 0
|
train_24734
|
I think that it was just pointless to produce a second part of a movie like "My Girl". "My Girl" was a very good movie but it is ridiculous making a second part of a movie in which one of the main characters (Macaulay Culkin as Thomas J.) dies. The story was over after the first movie. I wonder why someone tried to find a way to make the story going on. That was senseless!
| 0
|
train_19643
|
This movie has some of the most awesome cars I've ever seen in a movie, and definitely the hottest women, but I would have to say it is still one of the worst movies I've ever seen.Here is the plot, and if you read it with a little inflection, you have the acting as well.Beginning, bring in characters, hot woman singing (obvious lip sync). Music agent or producer comes in, thinks that she is awesome asks her to race. She turns down, too many bad memories. Flash to war hero, back from war, has several fights, and becomes movie hero with attitude that he is better than everyone. Drive off in fast exotic car. Brother races, then dies. Hero to avenge death, cut away to getting weapons from friend. (You have never seen this friend before or after, but seems to really care about him) Are you sure you want to do this; Yes; I mean are you really sure; Yes, give me weapons; are you REALLY sure; Yes; OK, I guess I can't talk you out of it, be careful man, I love you.Now he goes to blow up his uncles house who owned the car his brother drove. Finds woman, decides to rescue her, She drives off, and he doesn't finish killing his uncle. Now there will be a race to finish the movie. Oh yeah, need to throw in one more scene with bad people coming in to beat up people that don't really matter, but maybe it adds a little plot. Race is not even that exciting, of course it ends with two cars racing, and one that should win throws in a surprise ending.OK, I just saved you $7.00. You can send all of your money to me, because I should have given you the same amount of enjoyment as this movie does. Don't get me wrong, the cars are awesome, and Nadija is beautiful, but it is truly an awful movie.
| 0
|
train_21945
|
Shame Shame Shame on UA/DW for what you do! I was appalled. Do NOT take kids to see this movie. The humor is totally inappropriate for children - plus they'll be bored and disappointed. Certainly *we all* have read Theo's wonderful children book and certainly we have expectations...but this is pure trash. Dr. Seuss would be ashamed and certainly would've never given his "thumbs up" at such a dastardly attempt to capitalize on a classic.What a pity. Spend your money on the book. If you own a copy, then buy the book and donate it to a Toys for Tots program. This movie is NOT worth a "free" ticket viewing.Stick with the book. The tv cartoon version works well if you want a visual portrayal - save your money...seriously. SAVE your money - it will be on cable by saint patty's day.Shame shame shame on what they do!!
| 0
|
train_3474
|
This film is worth seeing alone for Jared Harris' outstanding portrayal of John Lennon. It doesn't matter that Harris doesn't exactly resemble Lennon; his mannerisms, expressions, posture, accent and attitude are pure Lennon. Best scene: Lennon in a local cafe verbally sparring with a stuttering fan as to whether Paul McCartney & Wings' "Silly Love Songs" is worthy of #1 status in America.
| 1
|
train_18690
|
This TV production of 1970 starring Susannah York and George C. Scott is another proof of how difficult it is to adopt "Jane Eyre" to the screen, and how much can go wrong in doing so. It is true that the movie suffered in the transfer to DVD - some scenes which were complete in the original were shortened and so badly edited that there are striking continuity gaps and that even one crucial scene between Jane and Rochester starts in the middle of a sentence! But even if the editing were better, the film would not be. The script is bad, the portrayal of the characters is untrue to the novel and nearly all actors are miscast. As a consequence one does not have the feeling of watching an adaptation of Charlotte Brontë's novel at all. The problem is not only that a number of scenes are shortened or left out - this is the case with all the short adaptations - but that the remaining scenes do no at all capture the tone, the spirit, the atmosphere and the concept of the novel.This Jane Eyre for example completely leaves out Gateshead and begins with Jane's arrival at Lowood. While this is perfectly all right, since some scenes must by necessity be left out, it is not understandable that, instead of using the time gained (so to speak) and thoroughly portraying Jane's friendship with Helen, the influence Helen has for Jane's development, the lecture in Christian stoicism that she teaches her, the film nearly exclusively concentrates on the physical ill-treatment of Helen, which is driven to absurd extremes in this adaptation. What Helen has to suffer is bad enough as described in the novel, but here Miss Scatchard is portrayed as a kind of sadistic prison ward, who deliberately wants to drive Helen to a premature death. And this is about all which happens at Lowood. If you compare that to the deep impact the years spent in Lowood have on Jane in the novel, one can only state with regret that the movie does not even touch the surface of that particular episode in Jane's life. And this is the problem throughout this adaptation: It rushes from scene to scene, very often without transition, and nowhere comes even near the essence of the novel. The dialogues are an odd mixture of made-up lines and lines from the novel, very clumsily patched together, and the scenes between Jane and Rochester are so shortened that both share only 5 minutes together on screen before they fall in love, and the little conversation they have contains nothing of the brilliance, the intensity and also the humour of the conversations between Rochester and Jane in the novel. But the scriptwriter not only did Brontë's language injustice but in addition managed to ruin her moral set-up with just one sentence. When Rochester and Jane go to see Rochester's wife after the would-be wedding, Rochester says: "Yet I once loved her (his wife) as I love you now." The whole moral concept of the novel depends on the fact that Rochester is indeed an innocent victim of an amoral scheme and was trapped into marrying a mad woman whom he never loved, and that his effort to seek a true life partner is, if not sanctified by God's and man's law, yet understandable and forgivable! But this one sentence completely undermines Brontë's whole carefully constructed moral concept and turns Rochester into a dirty old man who wants a new young wife because his old one is of no use to him any longer.From the errors regarding the script to the errors regarding the casting: Now I am by no means one of those who insist on physical resemblance between an actor and the literary figure he portrays, but by no stretch of imagination is it possible to picture lovely, blonde, blue-eyed and full-mouthed Susannah York as the novel's plain heroine. In addition, Ms York was in her thirties when the film was shot and looks it. Played by her, the novel's shy, reserved and inexperienced young Jane becomes a perfectly poised, graceful and mature woman, completely sure of herself and her deserts. I do not say that Susannah York does not play well and convincingly but the woman she portrays is not Brontë's Jane Eyre. To cast George C. Scott as Rochester must have been motivated by the desire to have a Rochester who looked old enough to make the 18 years difference in age between Jane and Rochester plausible. Scott looks as if he were around 50 but acts in various scenes as if he were 70.To compliment the "maturity" of the leading actors all passion, desire and despair seems to have been deliberately wrung out of the script. The scene between Jane and Rochester after the wedding, the emotional climax of the novel, has become a calm, rational conversation between two middle-aged persons, at the end of which Rochester falls asleep. When Jane returns to him in the last scene, he is just as mildly pleased as a grandfather who has just been paid a visit in his old people's home by his favourite granddaughter. The only character who displays an appropriate amount of emotion is St. John, of all people. Ian Bannen plays him so passionately and his eager plea for Jane's love is so touching that one gets the impression that Bannen was modelling his St. John on the Rochester of the novel. But good though Bannen is, his St. John is just as far from the novel as York's Jane and Scott's Rochester. The only redeeming features of this very disappointing "Jane Eyre" are the locations and the score, and I would only recommend this production to those who want to watch and compare every single adaptation of "Jane Eyre".
| 0
|
train_3118
|
Having not seen the previous two in the trilogy of Bourne movies, I was a little reluctant to watch The Bourne Ultimatum.However it was a very thrilling experience and I didn't have the problem of not understanding what was happening due to not seeing the first two films. Each part of the story was easy to understand and I fell in love with The Bourne Ultimatum before it had reached the interval! I don't think I have ever watched such an exquisitely made, and gripping film, especially an action film. Since I usually shy away from action and thriller type movies, this was such great news to me. Ultimatum is one of the most enthralling films, it grabs your attention from the first second till the last minute before the credits roll.Matt Damon was simply fantastic as his role as Jason Bourne. I've heard a lot about his great performances in the Bourne 1+2, and now, this fabulous actor has one more to add to his list. I look forward to seeing more of his movies in the future.The stunts were handled with style - each one was done brilliantly and I was just shocked by the impressiveness of this movie. Well done.
| 1
|
train_8093
|
My friend had the idea of watching the animated LOTR after seeing the Peter Jackson Return of The King. So I finally bought it off e-bay, thinking right from the start it was going to suck. Actually, it really wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. The animation was good for its time, they used a unique method of blending live action with animation to create some interesting effects, and the guy who did the voice for Frodo sounded somewhat like Elijah Wood.Not the greatest adaptation of a book, but trust me, I've seen a lot worse. It skips quite a lot of things, since both Fellowship and The Two Towers are compressed into one two hour movie. Definatley worth a watch, kids might like, but still, absoutley no comparision with the Peter Jackson trilogy.
| 1
|
train_13745
|
Absolutely the worst film yet by Burton, who seems to be getting worse with each film he directs. A miserable script loaded with cliches is only the first of many objectionable aspects to this film. This is the kind of movie where every time something happens, you'll be sure to hear someone shout out "he's lost his gun!" or whatever it is to let everybody know. Carter is really awful and so is Wahlberg, who can't play this straight and be convincing. Very nice effects and photography, but poor music in the John Williams mold by Burton's crony Elfman. Heston appears in a nonsensichal scene to spout out his most famous catch-phrases from the first movie. Very poor results.If anyone else out there also saw "Sleepy Hollow", they will probably have noticed, as I have, the declining quality of Burton's films. I've heard that this particular project was produced by others and that Burton was brought in as director, in which case his judgement should be questioned. But I think he has allowed any possible vision he might have had earlier in his career to slip; the evidence is there in the films. In "Sleepy Hollow", he couldn't decide what kind of movie he was making, whether it was a comedy or a real horror movie, and the population of british character actors (Chris Lee, etc.) made you also think it was kind of a monster rally film (those are never scary, as horror fans know). The movie couldn't succeed on either horror or comedy because it was so schizophrenic, and no style had been developed to smooth the two together. "Planet of the Apes" is much the same way, and the result comes off more like "Total Recall" or "Tango and Cash" than like sci-fi. He's also fallen into the rut of so many other "big" directors of trying to satisfy the entire possible audience. Word to Burton, if you're out there -- pick something and do it straight, or use some style to peice it all together (as in "Mars Attacks" or "Beetlejuice") or you might as well retire, because people like me that are fans of your movies will stop going.
| 0
|
train_3185
|
endearing tale........ voted ten against all averages for my age and sex... not all that much comedy (compared to a i almost wet myself movie) although funny enough. not a fan of musicals at all so probably a little too much for me, but they do give you time to grab a drink or soda without missing anything important. maybe a fifties version of when harry met sally? Ahab no not really but if that is in your top ten like it is mine you will like this movie. really it just leaves you with a warm fuzzy feeling, reminding you of what romance could and should be like, something to shoot for. my summary describes it best in very few words..... quite charming
| 1
|
train_18938
|
I didn't really know what this movie was about when I went to the theater to see it (hype about the Satanism etc etc etc) as the trailers in the last movie I saw looked pretty interesting.Oh dear, Roman Catholic mythology? Not my idea of a good scare and honestly, I just felt like watching a really good, scary movie, not some loosely plotted religious farce that tries to score cheap thrills by having some chick getting bloody every few minutes!I'll try to keep away from the spoilers (!) but I found it very odd that an Atheist, who gets a string of rosary beads from a deceased priest, could suddenly end up with Christ's wounds (aren't stigmata supposed to be deeply religious??) I mean, she hangs out with losers, does loser stuff, behaves like a typical rebel et al, and here she is displaying the wounds of Jesus Christ?? Come on!Scenes of her crucified, head thrown back, screaming, blood everywhere, became rather tedious after seeing it a dozen times. It was neither frightening or scary, just repulsive. It did, however, become quite painful to watch - those flicking scenes were highly annoying...CONCLUSION: If your a Catholic, defintly don't see this. If you're not, still don't see it.
| 0
|
train_14097
|
This movie is rated a classic on sentiment not on any quality of movie-making. It moves from the unlikely to the unbelievable, from the unrealistic to the ludicrous.The unbelievable plot revolves around an attempt by two British soldiers and a Hindu gofer to rescue a third soldier who has been captured by insurgent Indians. In the later scene we see a full regiment with drum and bagpipes marching into an ambush. In the British army, a sergeant does not order up a rescue attempt, and if you get past that, he does not attempt it with only one other soldier and an Indian servant when there is a full regiment on hand. The Indian insurgents are so incredibly inept it is laughable...there are hundreds of them but they can't hold their prisoner or kill the two rescuers, of course not. At one point we see the British soldiers throwing blocks of stone down from the battlements at the insurgents, who are scattered around the mountainside in ambush...one would have to have an eggplant for a brain to think this would do any damage. After Cary Grant as the rescued prisoner is shot, he lies on the floor looking around at the water boy...hardly the actions of someone who has been shot in the back. The water boy bravely blows a bugle (which comes from nowhere) to sound the alarm...this he does by standing up high on a wall so he can be seen and shot by the bad guys, and we shed a tear as he keeps trying to sound more notes as he is repeatedly shot and the bugle call breaks up into feeble squawks...instead of blowing the bugle while hiding behind cover as anybody with half a brain would do. This scene has deservedly been parodied in comedy sketches. If they wanted to make a Buster Keaton comedy, they should have hired Keaton and done it better.
| 0
|
train_14170
|
The movie's premise is spooky: a woman gets pregnant when kissed by a stranger in a bar.But as soon as the movie begins, a horrible opening scene establishes that this is a C type Sci-Fi TV movie. It's a big Star Trek and a bit X-files, but more than anything else it's boring.When the movie kicks into action everything is predictable and cliche. It looked more like a 2 parter in a bad Sci-Fi TV series. No suspense and no thrills, but not for a lack of trying. Just a lot of predictable dramatic conflicts between the main characters.Don't waste your time.
| 0
|
train_15119
|
It is a good film for kids who love dogs. It runs a bit slow early on but ends if a flurry of gooped up De Vil. The basic plot is the same as the first movie. The bright side of the movie for adults is the talking bird that thinks it is a dog. The bird talks like a human(Eric Idle of Monty Python) and barks like a dog. It is the comedy that the film needed more of. See it in the matinee so you don't have to pay full price or wait for it to appear on Disney.
| 0
|
train_12850
|
The performances of Fishbourne (who appears strangely funny somehow) and (short featured)Ed Harris are remarkable, unlike Connery's who doesn't appear to find sense in his role and ends up in the motorial behaviour of a 80yr old man. In fact the screenplay doesn't make sense; imagine a 60 min. happy ending-plot plus a sudden turn appendix without any argumental structure in respect to the characters. It's more an accident than a screenplay and may be good for examination purposes at screen-wrights' schools. The more you remind the details the stronger this impression gets. The capital punishment is not an issue here, although it is a subject from the beginning; it sort of fades away without further comment. The subject-matter and environment could have been good.
| 0
|
train_19385
|
...in an otherwise ghastly, misbegotten, would-be Oedipal comedy.I was the lone victim at a 7:20 screening tonight (3 days after the movie opened) , so there is some satisfaction in knowing that moviegoers heeded warnings.The bloom is off Jon Heder's rose. The emerging double chin isn't his fault; but rehashing his geeky kid shtick in another bad wig simply isn't working. It would be another crime if this were to be Eli Wallach's last screen appearance. Diane Keaton will probably survive having taken this paycheck - basically because so few will have seen her in this, the very worst vehicle she's chosen in the last few weeks.Sitting alone in the theater tonight I came alive (laughed, even) whenever Daniels was given the latitude in which to deliver the film's sole three dimensional character. He really is among our very best actors.In summary, even Jeff Daniels's work can't redeem this picture.
| 0
|
train_14601
|
Bernard Rapp passed away last year and was a very cultured journalist. Cinema was one of his biggest passions (he penned a vast worldwide dictionary of films) and so he was bound to wield a camera at least one time in his life. But the films he left garnered lukewarm reviews: "Tiré à Part" (1996) in spite of Terence Stamp's sensational performance was very caricatured in the depiction of the characters, "une Affaire De Goût" (2000) was a slick affair even if Bernard Giraudeau delivered a perverse performance, "Pas Si Grave" (2003) was another let-down and "un Petit Jeu Sans Conséquence" is as underwhelming as its predecessors. Its comic potential is exploited in a flimsy way.And however, the starting idea let predict a twirling, spiritual comedy. A couple held by Yvan Attal and Sandrine Kiberlain who invited their friends is in full moving in a lascivious mansion. To play with their guests, they pretend to part company with each other. And things don't go as planned because the announcement of their separation doesn't surprise them. The two lovers start to ponder about the validity of their couple.In spite of lush scenery and the promising material he had at his disposal, Rapp's undistinguished directing can't manage to give life to this game with unexpected consequences. The plot follows a well-worn pattern with characters who have specific well-known functions and masks that are unveiled about who they really are. Verbal or situation comic effects often fall flat. A bad editing fades a little more the film with this bad habit from Rapp to abruptly cut many sequences. Even the actors' sincere input in the venture is debatable. They seem to be bored and to recite their texts than to live them, especially Sandrine Kiberlain. The audience is soon caught in a deep torpor.It's regrettable to say it: Bernard Rapp's films never lived up to his intentions as "un Petit Jeu sans Conséquence" bears witness.
| 0
|
train_17451
|
I commented on this when it first debuted and gave it a "thumbs in the middle" review, remarking that I'd give it the benefit of the doubt beyond just the first episode. I've seen a total of six episodes now up to this point in June 2006. And as a lifelong Batman fanatic, I can say without hesitation: this show is utter crap.Everything's wrong with it. Everything. Getting past just the lousy animation and design, the stories are ridiculously convoluted and with no character development or apparent interest by the writers of this dreck to give any substance to any stories.And for God's sake...is it just me, or is the Joker in EVERY EPISODE?? Is Gotham that much of a revolving-door justice system? Or, again, is it just a complete lack of interest in the writers to put any effort into other villains (see "no character development", above).And to make matters worse, every single Joker tale is the same 3-part formula.1) Joker gasses people.2) Joker sets out to gas the whole city.3) Batman saves the day.Pfeh.There was one episode I saw that wasn't a Joker story. The title escapes me, but the villain was that nefarious Cluemaster...the "Think Thank Thunk" episode with the quiz show. That was the single-worst Batman story I've ever seen, heard or read. Yes, worse than "I've Got Batman in My Basement." I can't really say what I feel this show is because it's probably against the ToS, but it starts with "B" and rhymes with "fastardization". Thank goodness for the existence of the Timm/Dini/etc. era of Bat-entertainment, back from the Fox and Kids WB days. Stuff that good, and I should have known this, just couldn't possibly have lasted forever, unfortunately.
| 0
|
train_20460
|
I rented it because the second segment traumatized me as a little kid. I snuck downstairs really early one morning, started watching HBO, and The Raft (segment 2) terrorized me good. This time around, I still enjoyed The Raft, although I couldn't tell whether it was for nostalgic reasons or if it was actually a good short. The other two segments were complete trash. I can't believe a producer somewhere payed to make this junk. All I've accomplished by watching this was to ruin one more childhood memory. Creepshow 2 will now join Rad among my list of tainted childhood classics. 4/10
| 0
|
train_1700
|
i loved this movie. you have to respect midgets that dressed up like tiny Martians. Sure the story may have been thin at times, but you can't take away from the way it was done. i used to watch this over and over again when i was 8. its a kids movie, and besides, it has some of the greatest quotes ever. Blanzee's "Home on the Range" rendition is awesome. very well done if you ask me, 8 of 10.
| 1
|
train_17393
|
The movie is actually too slow. There are some nice images but it cannot outweigh the fact that the movie is in fact boring. You see a sexual intercourse a lot of watermelons and a sexual intercourse while eating a melon and maybe a little bit more. It may sound even interesting to someone but believe me to watch it for 2 hours isn't fun at all. Though you laugh several times but it's really not enough and it may be more out of despair and disbelieve than out of fun. To disturb the boredom director tries to put few movie video-clips into the movie. They are really colorful clips of absurd songs maybe from the 50's but it's hard to say exactly and they are trying to be funny so hard that it's really sad. Several times you have a feeling that the plot could evolve into something, that a powerful scene is being created but at the end it just somehow evaporates and that's it. Beside the clips there are hardly any dialogs let alone music. The director is trying to be original and artistic at all cost. Personally I cannot recommend the movie. I believe that art is something that shouldn't be boring. During the projection there was yawning all around the cinema which just corroborates my short review.
| 0
|
train_173
|
Actually, Goldie Hawn is from Washington (Takoma Park, Maryland), but I digress. This is sort of a Mr. Smith goes to Washington type of movie, with some variations but the same premise. I taped this movie off of cable years ago because I had a huge crush on Goldie Hawn. The story is interesting, but it's highly unlikely that some cocktail waitress will get an important job in the government just because she saved some big shot's life. It made me laugh and made me mad at the same time. It made me laugh because some of the situations she found herself in were so ridiculous, I had to laugh. (POSSIBLE SPOILER AHEAD). It made me mad to think that our government would set up an average citizen in the manner she was set up. And the speech she made at the end...beautiful. Too bad not many people have guts like that in real life.
| 1
|
train_11849
|
If only ALL animation was this great. This film is classic because it is strong is two simple aspects: Story and Character. The characters in this film are beautifully personified. I felt for all of the characters, and human-animal relationship in the movie works perfectly. The beautiful animation and 3-D computer animation hasn't worked better in any other film. This is a great movie for kids, and for adults who want a classic hero's journey. 8 of 10.
| 1
|
train_18844
|
Well I'm blowed, a Woody Allen film that I walked out of after half an hour (I'm aware of the moral fragility of commenting on a film of which I've seen less than half, but I hope you'll understand why). Basically, it became apparent very early on that we were going to be patronised from the screen with: a script that set out its conceit as if with bullet points; a cast that were all trying to be characters from Hannah and Her Sisters (with the exception of Chloe Sevigny), and were badly directed into doing so; and a camera that sat around portentously, only for there to be nothing to film but chat and the actor delivering it. Drama? None; it's partially pre-narrated, but the action does nothing to develop a dramatic situation.Maybe I did leave too early in this case, but by then I'd decided against another hour and a half of one-liner-Allen clones. The script has its funny moments I went almost entirely on the back of Will Ferrell's excerpts in the trailer (trailer-hooked again, doh!) but there's little pace to let them fly off nonchalantly, as is best. Worse than this there's no fluidity. Saying this film's wooden makes a forest look like a jelly: the opening café-bound discussion being the most abject case-in-point. The only thing that should be done by numbers is potted reviewing 2/10.
| 0
|
train_16034
|
I would rather of had my eyes gouged out with rusty ice picks than have had to sit through this abortion. There is no plot. There is no acting ability . Ray Liota has shamed himself and should be blacklisted from any more work. I am so sorry that the industry allows crap like this to be shown on any type of medium. Rumor has it that Maddona threw herself to the floor to break her other arm so she could be taken away on a stretcher. Actullly, she deserves to be married to this loser and wanna-be-actor-director. I hope she stays in London and never returns to the USA. Please do not waste your money on this so called film. I beg of you.
| 0
|
train_3345
|
What I expected: A rather lame overly-stereotypical portrayal of a sports-mad guy and an equally lame stereotypical portrayal of the gal who likes him yet suffers while being second banana to his overly zealous support for his favorite sports team.What I got: An even-handed story where both guy and gal end up admitting -- to themselves and each other -- that they each have passions in their lives yet each can forgive the other to save the love they share.Sounds sappy but with the nonstop humor and terrific performances this story works! Barrymore is classic Barrymore: that perfect blend of sweet, strong, and adorable. We expect that from her and she delivered.But Fallon is the nice surprise in this film. He brings to the role the perfect blend of sports nut combined with the appreciation for the normal things in life, like caring about kids and his girlfriend. Fallon delivers his lines with subtle perfection. He can be caring ("You just ran across the field for me!") and in the same breath be obliviously blinded by his love for the Red Sox ("How did the grass feel? Kinda spongy?") at the same time. Fallon's portrayal "made" the movie. Hopefully, this movie marks the beginning of a better film career for Fallon, something beyond the over-the-top sophomoric humor typical of SNL alums (i.e. Will Ferrell).In short, a movie that could have fallen victim to stereotypical male vs. female characters rose above that limitation and provided nonstop spot-on humorous lines, most delivered with brilliant subtlety by Fallon.Hey, I saw this with my wife -- not a baseball fan -- and she loved it as much as I did. It's neither a "Guy Flick" nor a "Chick Flick". It's a terrific make-you-laugh flick. Go see it!
| 1
|
train_14002
|
The Ballad of Django is a meandering mess of a movie! This spaghetti western is simply a collection of scenes from other (and much better!) films supposedly tied together by "Django" telling how he brought in different outlaws. Hunt Powers (John Cameron) brings nothing to the role of Django. Skip this one unless you just HAVE to have every Django movie made and even THAT may not be a good enough excuse to see this one!!
| 0
|
train_13255
|
I am currently sitting here, forcing myself to finish this. I figure I blew 6 bux on the VHS, might as well suffer for it. I remember about 4 or 5 years ago doing a search on the internet for "War of the Worlds" cause of the rumors of the Spielberg movie at the time, and I missed the old TV series from the early 90's. The website make it out that this was a multi-million dollar budget rendition of the classic book. It was going to be a "perfect translation". Perfect CRAP is more in tune with this film.First off, the video on this movie was glitched! It looked as if I was watching the Full Motion Video from an old mid-90's PC or Playstation CD-Rom video game. Sadly enough, the color quality was similar. The acting made Shatners classic "dramatic pause" look damn near Shakespearean in quality. The CG rendering of various scenes was horrendous, and green screen sequences were worse than those seen in old Dukes of Hazardd scenes.Secondly, it is slow and terribly drawn out. I sat thru 45 minutes of the video (no promo's at the beginning) before the cylinder actually Opened to reveal the first alien. After that, the alien was a terribly constructed CG squid. I am now an hour into it and the most of the alien weaponry I have seen is a spinning silver disk (crappy down even) attached to a mechanical arm. The dramatic scenes are murdered with overly done instrumental's. The last thing on that, for an alien invasion in the turn of the century 1900's NO ONE is concerned for their life. It's like they have no concept. Even though media was slow, word of mouth spreads fast and people would have known. The "illusion" of day and night was shoddy at best. Simply changing the color around the people to purple, blue or green does not signify NIGHT TIME. Perhaps some lighting and actual night time shoots would have given a MUCH better illusion. THere is a lot of wasted sequences throughout the film of just watching the "hero" gallop around or walk down silly roads. Get on with the film. I know how people get around, you do NOT need to be so in-depth.Now, finally an hour and 5 minutes into the film and they show the alien machines. Mighty Morphin Power Rangers had better looking effects. Even the skeletons of vaporized humans looked as if animated by a freshman high school computer app class student. The animations do NOT match up to the scenery at all.In closing folks, if you want "The War of the Worlds", do one of four things. 1) Watch the 1953 original, 2) watch the early 90's TV series, 3) wait for Spielberg's rendition to be released shortly, OR 4) Read the frikkin book (something we all probably did in elementary English class). AVOID THIS MOVIE. IT IS A WASTE OF YOUR MONEY.
| 0
|
train_9470
|
I'm not a Steve Carell fan however I like this movie about Dan, an advice columnist, who goes to his parents house for a stay with his kids and ends up falling in love with his brother's girlfriend. Its a story thats been told before, but not like this. There are simply too many little bits that make the film better than it should be. The cast is wonderful, and even if Carell is not my cup of tea, he is quite good as the widower who's suppose to know everything but finds that knowing is different than feeling and that sometimes life surprises you. At times witty and wise in the way that an annoying Hallmark card can be, the film still some how manages to grow on you and be something more than a run of the mill film. Worth a look see
| 1
|
train_21063
|
It is like what the title of this thread say. Only impression I got from that movie is that Marlee Matlin's character was always angry, so cynical, and so pathetic. Her character's first date with William Hurt's character where they were dancing were dumb. All in all, I've tried to finish watching the movie four times, and of all four times I fell asleep. I would keep watching that movie with one intention... to beat my problem with insomnia, because all it do is to put me to sleep. Sweet dream.
| 0
|
train_9026
|
In my opinion, October Sky is one of the best movies of 1999...It totally has everything an emotional drama movie would need, like, wonderful story and good character interactions. October Sky will remain in heart for as long as I can remember, and I just have to say a very special thanks to those who have created this film.
| 1
|
train_23066
|
While I count myself as a fan of the Babylon 5 television series, the original movie that introduced the series was a weak start. Although many of the elements that would later mature and become much more compelling in the series are there, the pace of The Gathering is slow, the makeup somewhat inadequate, and the plot confusing. Worse, the characterization in the premiere episode is poor. Although the ratings chart shows that many fans are willing to overlook these problems, I remember The Gathering almost turned me off off what soon grew into a spectacular series.
| 0
|
train_13634
|
As a Dane I'm proud of the handful of good Danish movies that have been produced in recent years. It's a terrible shame, however, that this surge in quality has led the majority of Danish movie critics to lose their sense of criticism. In fact, it has become so bad that I no longer trust any reviews of Danish movies, and as a result I have stopped watching them in theaters.I know it's wrong to hold this unfortunate development against any one movie, so let me stress that "Villa Paranoia" would be a terrible film under any circumstances. The fact that it was hyped by the critics just added fuel to my bonfire of disillusionment with Danish film. Furthermore, waiting until it came out on DVD was very little help against the unshakable feeling of having wasted time and money. Erik Clausen is an accomplished director with a knack for social realism in Copenhagen settings. I particularly enjoyed "De Frigjorte" (1993). As an actor he is usually funny, though he generally plays the same role in all of his movies, namely that of a working-class slob who's down on his luck, partly because he's a slob but mostly because of society, and who redeems himself by doing something good for his community. This is problem number one in "Villa Paranoia"; Clausen casts himself as a chicken farmer, which is such a break from the norm that he never succeeds in making it credible. It is much worse, however, that the film has to make twists and turns and break all rules of how to tell a story to make the audience understand what is going on. For instance, the movie opens with a very sad attempt at visualizing the near-death experience of the main character with the use of low-budget effects and bad camera work. After that, the character tells her best friend that she suddenly felt the urge to throw herself off a bridge. This is symptomatic of the whole movie; there is little or no motivation for the actions of the characters, and Clausen resorts to the lowest form of communicating whatever motivation there is: Telling instead of showing. Thus, at one point, you have a character talking out loud to a purportedly catatonic person about the way he feels, because the script wouldn't allow him to act out his feelings; and later on, voice-over is abruptly introduced, quite possibly as an afterthought, to convey feelings that would otherwise remain unknown to the audience due to the director's ineptitude. Fortunately, at this point you're roughly an hour past caring about any of the characters, let alone the so-called story.The acting, which has frequently been a problem in Clausen's movies, can be summed up in one sad statement: Søren Westerberg Bentsen, whose only other claim to stardom was as a contestant on Big Brother, is no worse than several of the heralded actors in the cast.I give this a 2-out-of-10 rating.
| 0
|
train_9913
|
In addition to being an extremely fun movie, may I add that the costumes and scenery were wonderful. This kind, fun loving woman had a great deal of money. Unfortunately, she also had two greedy daughters who were anxious to get their hands on her money. This woman was lonely since the death of her husband. He had proposed to her in a theater that was going to be torn down. To prevent that, she bought it. Her daughters were afraid she was throwing away "their" money and decided to take action. The character actors in this film were a great plus also. I would give almost anything to have a copy of this film in my video library, but as of yet, it's never been released. Sad.
| 1
|
train_10893
|
Its a good thing I rented the movie before seeing the viewer rating from this site. It was a wonderful movie that I will be adding to my Christmas selection. The cast was wonderfully chosen and Ben Affleck plays a good leading role. I would tell viewers who have not seen the movie to go ahead and buy it. I rate it right up there with Christmas vacation. The movie was very funny and well written and Ben plays the eccentric rich executive very well. The things he says and does is just how I would imagine a person with too much money to act. The movie is much funnier than The Santa Claus and Christmas With The Kranks. Plus it has a good story line and teaches the true meaning of Christmas which is you can't buy love with money.
| 1
|
train_2801
|
My scalp still smarts from the burning coals heaped on it when I vowed I love this film. Bring on the coals; I'll walk over them as well to say again that I love "Bend it Like Beckham." Granted, there's a lot of "in spite of" in that confession. It's a bit movie-of-the-week; the screenplay is on the paint-by-numbers side. And, most troublingly, the director's commentary implies that in this film beauty can be found primarily amongst the white of skin.The film's genius is not in what's obvious to the Syd Field-doctored eye: character arcs, themes, construction. It's in both the surface and what lurks deep beneath, but not in those layers of artistic topsoil that reviewers seem most often to scratch at. Powerful, sometimes semi-clad female bodies not simply on display but kicking the crap out of a football do a better job of naturalizing female strength and agility than Lara Croft or Zhang Ziyi will ever do. These are real bodies (Keira Knightley's excepted) whose work is not to look great first and kick butt later. They are working bodies whose beauty is in their movement and self-determination. And, in my book, lead actress Parminder Nagra is one of the most gorgeous creatures ever captured on screen not only because she can lay claim to that hackneyed adjective, "luminous," but because her performance has an honesty and un-bookish intelligence that's utterly compelling.The result is a film women can enjoy without feeling like they're making a pact with the devil to do so. As in Chadha's "Bride and Prejudice," the relationships amongst women sizzle with a chemistry that can't be neatly slotted into the stodgy, Sweet Valley High categories of "best friends" or "sisters." Perhaps Chadha is even right in her commentary to disavow the film's flirtation with lesbianism. "Bend it Like Beckham" has an electricity that can't be reduced to the simple hetero/homosexual love triangle its conventionally structured script would suggest. The precise nature of its pleasure is, ultimately, a bit of a mystery and is all the more seductive for it.Oh yes, and did I mention that it's hilarious?
| 1
|
train_7833
|
In some ways, The Wrath of Kriemhild surpasses Siegfried's Death, but it also loses some of that film's greatness. The plot of this one is more cohesive than the first, which is quite amazing. The second half of the actual poem is a lot sloppier and a lot harder to tread through, until, that is, you get to the climactic battle scenes; only the Iliad's are better. Lang and Harbou embellished the Huns. The poet-compiler of the Nibelungenlied didn't know a Hun from his right ball, and as a result they are, more or less, the same as the Burgundians in custom. For example, although the poet clearly describes Etzel as a heathen (which is Kriemhild's main concern as Rudiger tries to persuade her to marry him), when she gets to Hunland, the first thing she does is go to mass. The Huns here are clearly heathens; they're almost like caveman. The depiction of them is hilarious, especially Verbal, the jester, who has two marvelous scenes. Etzel's character has been given more weight. He is much more formidable. All he does is bemoan his fate in the original poem. Lang and Harbou are masterful at building suspense, especially at the banquet scene, which is intercut with Verbal's second performance to an amazing effect. However, as is the nature of this half of the poem, the film's amazing technical accomplishments are missing in this one, for the most part, except for a dazzling sequence where Etzel's hall burns down with the Nibelungs inside. The one thing I do have to object to is the way Harbou changes the ending. SPOILERS: in the poem, after Hildebrand captures Hagen and Gunther, they are imprisoned. Kriemhild visits Hagen in his cell and demands that he reveal where he has hidden the horde. He refuses and she herself decapitates her brother. When Hagen still refuses, she decapitates him. Hildebrand (or possibly Dietrich) is so disgusted that a woman would presume to murder a great warrior that he, in turn, decapitates her, calling her a "Devil Woman". Etzel, who is much weaker in the poem than he is here, says something silly like: "Ah me!" I can understand why they would want to keep a unity of time and place as Hildebrand brings them from the castle; to retain the prison settings of the two deaths would make the film very anticlimactic. I also understand why they didn't have Hildebrand kill Kriemhild: his character is much reduced here; his name is only mentioned once. But, to have Kriemhild kill herself, adopting Brynhild's death from the Icelandic sources, is just catering to the audience instead of challenging them. The point of the poem is that Kriemhild's wrath goes far beyond it should into the realm of pure evil. Here, we simply have her die for her lost love. It's not as interesting.
| 1
|
train_6079
|
shakespeare's plays have a way of transcending time. The language somehow breaks the time barrier. but perhaps it is the actors who really do that.after the disappointment in Romeo and Juliet (the version with Claire Danes and Leonardo DiCaprio), was hesitant take on another modern rendition of Shakespeare. To my surprise Othello was great!Iago's character was played so well by the Kenneth fellow! even thoough Iago is really evil and despicable, the character was played so well that it does what shakespeare intended for the charater to be, a pleasure for the audience to hate. i have to say that fishburne's performance here was really good as well.i recommend this for shakespeare scholars and lazy students (who refuse to read the book) alike.
| 1
|
train_14642
|
If you are under the age of 6 or 7, then you're going to really enjoy this movie. My youngest daughter is glued to the TV when she watches it. As an adult, I can't stand it!! I'm all up for sequels....when they have a decent storyline. But this is nowhere near up to standard. Please forgive me for slating what is after all a kid's film, but when you have to sit through it nearly every day when your kids who love it so much, you'll understand why. My daughter would watch this film over and over again on the same day if we let her.I've given this film 4 out of 10 purely for the fact that it keeps my youngest entertained.
| 0
|
train_15870
|
Just a dumb old movie. First Stanwyck's son gets his foot trapped in a really dumb way, and then her husband gets his foot trapped in another really dumb way. In an effort to save him, Stanwyck gets unlucky, yet again, and comes across an escaped convict. She has a chance to kill him but fails in a very dumb way. In the end her husband is saved, and Stanwyck tells us through narration what the dumb message of the movie is. All's well than ends dumb.I could never figure out how an unattractive woman like Stanwyck ever made it as a leading lady in Hollywood's glamour-oriented Golden Era; that nose is so beautiful
So photogenic
The film is mercifully short, running a little over an hour. It's as though the director sensed that he was making crap, so he thought it best to keep the crap short.
| 0
|
train_114
|
As much as the movie was good, i have nothing more to say about it than what was said already. all i wanted is to point the fact that the movie isnt from Sweden but from Denemark. Maybe I wrong and in that case i'll be happy to know my mistakes so take the and notify me.
| 1
|
train_11193
|
I kind of liked The Lonely Lady. Give Pia a break. She looks great and she has really nice eyes. What's not to like? The scene where she gets raped by Ray Liotta with a garden hose was kind of gross and cruel. Actually, a LOT of stuff that happens in this movie is gross and cruel. But its a trashy movie. A lot of movies that are trashy are not all bad. I liked this better than Valley of the Dolls, which was not only trashy but boring as well. At least this wasn't boring.Pia gets naked a lot and seems miscast as a writer. Watching her talk about Pushkin and Byron with a guy three times her age is flat unbelievable. I'm sure Pia's a nice person in real life, she just doesn't project the writer vibe. She looked much happier when she was working as a hostess for that guy from Saturday Night Fever and wearing a glittery disco dress.A couple of the scenes are funny. The one where she tells the two-timing actor that she's pregnant and he rolls his eyes and snaps at her to "stop hanging around!", all the while he's practically fawning over every bimbo who flounces by.Pia's nervous breakdown scene is good. It was probably a mistake to go so supernova on it (the vortex of floating faces and freeze-frame scream - whoa!) and her subsequent catatonic stupor is kind of overdone.The acceptance speech is a hoot, though. I want to see someone do that speech in a drama class.But, again, this is trash we're talking about. You could find worse on any movie of the week back in the eighties.
| 1
|
train_23839
|
There are two groups of people...those who love every Fellini movie they see and normal people. While I will admit that I have really enjoyed some of his films, I can also honestly say that I can't stand some of them. My opinion, by the way, is not just some knee-jerk reaction--I have seen most of Fellini's films and have also seen many films by the world's most famous directors. With this in mind, I feel that the most overrated and annoying directors can be both Godard and Fellini. They both have delighted in the bizarre and often unwatchable and yet have received gobs of accolades from reviewers and the "intelligensia", while the average person would never sit through some of their films. Heck, even a person who loves international cinema would generally be left out in the cold when seeing some of these films. So, since only a small clique actually watches their films and they are already predisposed to seeing the directors as geniuses, it's not surprising that their films are so often praised--it's like a cult! If you don't believe me, think about many of Godard's films such as FIRST NAME CARMEN or ALPHAVILLE,...or what about FELLINI SATYRICON or JULIET OF THE SPIRITS? These films abound with boredom, weirdness and incomprehensibility. Now I am NOT saying a film can't be weird (after all I love HAPPINESS OF THE KATAKURIS and SHAOLIN SOCCER), but it must be watchable!Now on to this movie. Somehow, Fellini has managed to make a story about a sexually compulsive man completely boring and unsexy. This is no small task--it took a lot of work to make this so unwatchable. Instead of cheap sexual thrills, the sex acts are choreographed in a silly and annoying way while the character of Casanova is buried under so much makeup and prosthetics that Donald Sutherland looks like a ghoul. I know some of this must have been Fellini's intention, but many viewers will be left completely bored by this sterile performance--especially since Sutherland's lines are all poorly dubbed into Italian and so he neither looks nor sounds like himself! Unfortunately, when the movie is not wrapped up in these boring sexual escapades, there really isn't anything else to watch.An interesting note about the first sexual conquest shown in this dull movie is that the actress looks amazingly like a younger version of Fellini's wife, Giulietta Masina. Considering that in addition to this, that in previous decades Fellini had Masina play characters such as a prostitute and a horribly abused woman, it seems like he may have truly hated his wife and was having this acted out on screen. I read a bit about them and their tempestuous relationship and it seems to bear this out as well. This is about the only aspect of this turgid film that I found at all interesting. Don't say I didn't warn you!
| 0
|
train_6067
|
Although i am inclined to agree with the other comments made by people who have seen this movie, i am ashamed to say i rather like it. Not often can such a huge pile of 80s pap be found outside of a Wham! video, so it is most definitely worth a viewing (£0.79 a night in my local store!). Watch out for the insanely obvious seams and zip on the monster's costume, the fact that the 'hero' looks a lot like Keith Chegwin and such classic lines as the following: Evil Wizard-Type Bloke: "At last we meet Kor..." Kor: "Thrilling, isn't it?"Amazing!!I also like the fact that although the video box looks quite exciting with images of a castle surrounded by raging seas and a dangerous falcon-like bird carrying a handsome hero to safety (among other such 'interesting and engaging' suggestions of what goes on in the actual film, none of them actually happen. No, I'm not joking...there really isn't a raging sea or a ferocious bird, it's just trying to make you interested...classic in my opinion. This film gets 10 for pure entertainment value!!
| 1
|
train_154
|
"El Mar" directed by Catalonian director Agusti Villarona, and based on the novel by Blai Bonet, offers a glimpse of the Spanish history as seen by a Balearic author that takes the viewer back to the days of the civil war in that country. The movie concentrates on three friends, and follows them from those early days during the onset of the war in Majorca, to a few years later as two of those friends meet again when they are at a sanatorium, lost in the countryside.We first meet three boys that are playing happily. Not everything is what it seems. The tragic death of one of them points out about the cruelty of the one that commits the evil deed. The boys have excluded a young girl, about their age, from taking part in their games.When we meet the adult Ramallo again, he is on his way to a sanatorium. He seems to be suffering from tuberculosis. To his surprise, Manuel Tur, one of his boyhood friends is also being treated, and the young girl that was not welcomed to participate in their games is now one of the nuns that supervise their health care. It is obvious that Tur looks at Ramallo in a way that only means he is in love with the tough bully. Their relationship will have devastating consequences.Roger Casamajor does a good job with portraying the older Ramallo. Bruno Bergonzino makes an impression as Tur, the vulnerable youth. Antonia Torrens plays Sor Francisca with conviction. Angela Molina, puts an appearance as Carmen, the wife of the caretaker of the institution. Simon Andreu is perfect as Alcantara."El Mar" is a dark film that clearly shows Agusti Villarona's talents in making the novel come alive for the viewer.
| 1
|
train_9355
|
Time and time again, it seems that the comedic actors of Hollywood are surprising me with their talents as dramatic performers: first it was Robin Williams {'One Hour Photo (2002)'}, then it was Jim Carrey {'Eternal Sunshine
(2004)' being one example}, then Will Ferrell {'Stranger than Fiction (2006)'} and now Adam Sandler. Yes, that's absolutely right: the guy who has based an entire career on making brainless, goofball comedies {I'm not complaining; I've always been a fan} has finally given me a performance of which he can be proud. Of course, some readers may be wondering whatever happened to 'Punch-Drunk Love (2002),' but I can only assure you that it's a film I'm currently taking measures to see as soon as possible, since I've heard it's terrific. My first film from director Mike Binder, 'Reign Over Me,' is an intelligent and respectful exploration of grief and friendship. Though it does occasionally stray into all-too-familiar territory, the somewhat predictable storyline proves surprisingly deep and moving, with both Sandler and Don Cheadle giving memorable performances.Alan Johnson (Cheadle) is a successful dentist with a good family, though he finds himself unable to communicate adequately with his wife (Jada Pinkett Smith) and so his marriage is a little shaky. Charlie Fineman (Adam Sandler) is Alan's ex-college roommate, a man who lost his entire family in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and who is still confronting his overwhelming feelings of grief. A disheveled figure with messy hair and downcast eyes {often likened in appearance to Bob Dylan}, Charlie has abandoned his career in dentistry, and spends his time in solitude: listening to music with headphones that cut out all sound from the outside world, driving around Manhattan in his motorised scooter, immersing himself in fantastical video games and repeatedly redecorating his apartment kitchen in accordance with his deceased wife's final wishes. When Alan and Charlie meet for the first time in years, the latter doesn't even recognise an old friend, having completely abandoned any memories prior to his life-crippling experience. Indeed, at first he doesn't even acknowledge the existence of his family, and abruptly loses his temper whenever anybody suggests that he seek counselling.Initially, it may seem a bit exploitative for the filmmakers to be using the September 11 attacks as a storytelling device. Afterall, wouldn't it be just as devastating if Charlie's family had died in an ordinary, everyday car accident? However, if you consider that the director's intention was to demonstrate the enormous pain caused to ordinary citizens by the tragedy, then 'Reign Over Me' does a very good job. It's easy to get so caught up in meaningless statistics that you neglect the emotional costs of the terrorist attacks; this is the first 9/11-orientated film I've seen that truly dealt with the suffering of those who weren't even involved, whose only anguish was caused through losing those whom they loved. Adam Sandler shows surprising range in a difficult role, one which would have crumbled to pieces had he not been up to the task. Snapping instantly between cheerfulness, anger and depression, Charlie Fineman is a man with whom we can deeply sympathise, a hollow soul who, thanks to the companionship of an old friend, can finally glimpse light at the end of a dark, bleak tunnel.
| 1
|
train_517
|
Pressburger and Powell's greatest movie. David Niven plays the RAF bomber pilot who misses his own death but is granted a second chance at life when heaven notices that he is AWOL and dispatches an angel to investigate. The scene when the young soldiers, men and women, black and white, all killed in action, arrive in heaven to be processed for eternal life is unbearably poignant. Watch out too for Roger Livesey, a deeply under appreciated actor, and Kim Hunter as the love interest (later, of course, Zira in Planet of the Apes). Incidentally, Steven Spielberg cast the actress who played the chief angel (Kathleen Byron) as the elderly wife of the eponymous private in Saving Private Ryan half a century later, an act that speaks volumes for his cinematic literacy.
| 1
|
train_16183
|
Wes Craven, you are having a laugh... at our expense. The Red Eye plot is preposterous... We are confronted by a guy who has apparently spent 8 weeks watching a girl, who then turns up at an airport behind her, flirts and chats her up successfully, somehow wangles a seat next to her in a two seat space, not trapped in the middle of a five seat row (contacts at check-in?) and is cheezily nice during a painfully slooooow build up. Then, once up in the air, in a confined space, surrounded by strangers, he immediately starts threatening the vacuous, if super-efficient, Rachel McAdams and saying tosh like 'we got ya daddy, do what I say, or poppa gets it'. Well, forgive me, but didn't they already have her daddy ready for slaughter-so-you-better-oughta long before she stepped on the plane and therefore wouldn't it have been oh, sooooooo much simpler to simply snatch the gal off the street and terrorise her in a room somewhere, forgetting the complicated and insecure dad plot, pulling her nails out or whatever until she made the all important 'call' required? Or even - cos this is the movies and we need a few unreal twists - keep the dumb dad-in-distress thing intact if you must, but dress it up better so that holding him in harms way until the convoluted plot had been concluded made some sense, without the plane dumbdown? Alternatively, without wanting to sound like an actual thinking terrorist/assassin - couldn't the massive bazooka-missile thang employed have been far more easily used on, say, a car driving down the highway, with the politician inside, rather than the 50th story of a Miami seafront hotel, from a fishing boat (mind you, as we already know, security in Miami is lax, so they'll speed away)? I know, I know, far more fun to go through watching a pretty girl for 8 weeks, burgle her dads house to steal his wallet (that somehow - star trek style - gets transported from Miami to Texas instantly) in order to - perhaps - get her to arrange for a politician to change hotel room and, and, and... Well, a thousand things could go wrong here, each one entirely destroying the Big Plan, so why not slim the elements down to a sensible handful, such as - 1. bazooka. 2. car. 3. boom! My 50 minute drive home from the cinema was spent highlighting the abundance of flaws and stupid cod-Hitchcockian twists, which sadly was the best fun of the whole sorry experience. And as for security back at Miami Airport... we have an apparently crazy and violent girl running off a plane, chased by cops, who during the chase sits down to have a coffee, moves elsewhere to read a magazine at a bar, then runs again like crazy up and down the whole terminal... by now also chased by crazed Cillian Murphy (no CCTV then? - I had guns pulled on me for parking in the wrong place for 10 seconds at Miami Airport a couple of years back). So instead of speaking to the cops - her allies - or getting on the blower at a call-box direct to her dad to warn him his life is in danger, McAdams prefers instead to steal a People Carrier off a family in the Airport forecourt (call the damned security...) and drives home to daddy, mowing down the assassin with the vehicle in the front garden of the house, in a rich neighbourhood-watch district, crushing the front porch in the process - an act which actually slightly wakes dad up from an afternoon snooze, after about a minute, yet which somehow fails to register with neighbours who aren't even mildly curious, thus ensuring 15 more minutes of hide and seek shenanigans as the duo run around the vast Hollodeck type house... Dohhh, it actually hurts to keep thinking about it all - Cillian (surely renamed Silly 'un for doing this one?) preposterously turns from ice assassin to comically unhinged (and inept) lunatic killer at the end, this theoretically ruthless despatcher of human life now allowing the dad to live so that he can watch his daughter getting her goose cooked. I'd better stop, because the stream of drivel I'm writing here must sound as uncoordinated as the Red Eye script. If Ms McAdams hadn't been allowed to get on the plane in the first place the title could have been altered, from 'Red Eye' to 'No Eye, Dear'. RR
| 0
|
train_11770
|
i was hoping this was going to be good as a fan of timothy dalton's james bond and although it wasn't his deserved '3rd bond outing' it was a laugh. Belushi brought some good humour to his part and dalton hammed it up nicely, but was probably underused. his part was liked a camped up version of jack nicholson in a few good men. the other brit in it was a bit shocking, but overal it was a laugh.
| 1
|
train_20226
|
*** Warning - this review contains "plot spoilers," though nothing could "spoil" this movie any more than it already is. It really IS that bad. ***Before I begin, I'd like to let everyone know that this definitely is one of those so-incredibly-bad-that-you-fall-over-laughing movies. If you're in a lighthearted mood and need a very hearty laugh, this is the movie for you. Now without further ado, my review:This movie was found in a bargain bin at Wal-Mart. That should be the first clue as to how good of a movie it is. Secondly, it stars the lame action-star Dolph Lundgren. That should be the second clue as to how good of a movie it is. I'm still shocked that it was even put on DVD (who would waste their money doing such a thing?), though as you might imagine, there aren't any extras or bonus footage on the DVD. In fact, there's not even a menu; the movie just starts playing.First, the writer for this movie deserves to be tortured and killed. It has one of the worst scripts ever written and is plagued with terrible one-liners; remarkably unbelievable, fake dialogue; and inappropriate comments (like Lee's comment on Lundgren's. err. manhood, which I'll mention later). There isn't one single sincere sounding line in the entire movie. The dialogue and plot go hand-in-hand, as the script and plot both progress in an entirely nonsensical fashion. The two cops hate each other for no apparent reason at the beginning, and then for again no reason at all, Lee's character pulls over to the side of the road, runs around to the other side of the car, and says `I'm not going to let you go alone, 'cause despite myself, I like you! And I don't want to see you get killed!' . or something to that extent, anyhow. There are disgusting one-liners, mostly said by Lee. For instance, when duking it out with a bad guy, Lee says `You have the right to remain silent . You have the right to be dead!' Lastly, I'll mention the entirely inappropriate and nonsensical comment that Lee makes about Lundgren's nether-regions. When bad guys start to attack after a seemingly random love scene between Lundgren and Carrere, and Lundgren decides to fight them off in his underwear, Lee says to him: `Incase we die, I just wanted to let you know that you have the biggest dick I've ever seen on a guy.' . Yes, he actually says that. It makes no sense and isn't even possible (Lee never actually sees Lundgren naked, so how would he know?), but the writer threw it in the script anyway. The entire movie looks like some kind of action video game, and Lee even admits it. After Lee and the underwear-only Lundgren defeat all of those bad guys, Lee makes a comment that is also truly beautiful: `Wow, this is sort of like a video game; we just defeated the first wave!'Second, the plot of this movie is despicable. It suffers, in my opinion, mainly from the fact that it just doesn't exist. The trailer for this movie - which IMDb has available for viewing, by the way - makes it sound like the movie is about two cops trying to stop the Japanese Yakuza from taking over Lost Angeles. This is extremely misleading, however, since the movie has practically nothing to do with that at all. They make very brief, vague references to the Yakuza trying to start up a methamphetamine business with local drug dealers, but the entire movie ACTUALLY revolves around a poorly-written attempt for Kenner (Lundgren's character) to revenge the death of his parents, whom the Yakuza leader (named Yoshida) killed when he was only 9 years old. The entire plot can basically be summed up like this: Yoshida wants Kenner dead, Kenner wants Yoshida dead, and the two try two kill each other. And of course all the while Kenner's sarcastic sidekick (named Johnny and played by Brandon Lee) acts like an ignorant idiot, and Tia Carrere gets naked. twice.The acting is one of the worst parts of the entire movie. The dialogue is so unrealistic, and their entirely insincere portrayal of it emphasizes this even more. You'd expect poor acting from action stars anyway, but this movie highlights some of the most unimaginably bad acting ever recorded.Finally we get to the heart of the movie's baseness: the flagrantly bad action. There are so many astoundingly bad, unrealistic action sequences in this movie, it's just downright impressive they managed to fit them all in. Although Lee has his fair share of bad scenes as well, most of the truly terrible action involves Lundgren. For instance, Lundgren nonchalantly takes on four or five kung fu bad guys one-handed, without spilling his tea. Then, when surprised by an oncoming speeding car, Lundgren casually leaps over it. Or how about when he reaches THROUGH a closed door, grabs the villain on the other side, pulls him back through the door, and beats him up? Or when he picks up Tia Carrere, gently walks (not runs) backward through a glass door that shatters around him, and leaps down a one-story height with Tia still in arm, only to then lift up an entire car without the slightest effort and uses it as a barricade to shield them from bullets? All of the shameless gunfights are terrible as well, with Lundgren and Lee killing every bad guy instantaneously, while the rain of bullets from their fifty attackers never seem to hit either of them. That is, of course, until the final fight scene of the movie. Lundgren gets shot point blank in his bare chest in a region that even if it did manage to miss his heart, would still immediately begin to fill lungs with blood and kill him within a matter of seconds. Despite this, Lundgren remains in top-notch condition and manages to duke it out in the middle of a parade with Yoshida, the evil super villain. And of course the passing people in the parade dressed as samurai are carrying REAL, fully sharpened katanas, which the two use to sword fight. Now in addition to his bullet wound, Lundgren gets several deep slices in his chest and arms. Does this stop him? No, of course not! In fact, a few seconds later after easily killing the evil Yoshida (who gets pinned to a dartboard-like wheel and then bursts into flames for no reason), Lundgren casually walks off with Tia and Lee as if he wasn't injured at all. God, it's terrible.All of these factors are then mixed up with an entirely unnecessary, gratuitous nude scene every five minutes, including topless women at a party, the beheading of a topless woman, women at a strip club, nude women at a Japanese spa, and the pointless hot tub and love scene with Tia. Not to mention the trip to the bizarre sushi bar, at which rich Japanese men are eating sushi off of naked women. Which, by the way, prompts Lee to say with much fake enthusiasm that after defeating the bad guys he and Lundgren will `go eat fish off those naked chicks!' Which, of course, is followed by a disturbing high five. And we can't forget the terrible editing either, like when the villains are crushing a man trapped in a car at a junk yard, and the editors left in a really obvious glimpse of a prop dummy. The credits also list an enormous list of stunt workers, which implies that a lot of the action probably wasn't done by the movie stars after all.In the end, this movie repeatedly outdoes it self with brazen badness. It is illogical and impossible, and as a result, remarkably entertaining. If you're looking for any kind of thoughtful cinema, this movie will make you want to die. If you're looking for a good laugh and a good time mocking bad movie making, this movie will delight you. As an actual movie, I'll merit this movie a 0.5 out of 10. As an entertaining way to waste an hour and eighteen minutes, however, this beauty takes the cake.
| 0
|
train_23917
|
The youthful group in "St. Elmo's Fire" who just graduated from college barely seem able to make it through high school much less four years at any prominent university. For the most part, these kids are irresponsible, selfish, greedy and stupid, yet co-writer and director Joel Schumacher appears to hold them up as touchstones for a generation. With a now-outdated cast of "up and comers", a background score that sounds awfully similar to that of "Terms Of Endearment", and writing which lords the smugness of this circle over us, "Fire" is a paltry blaze, one that gets even more embarrassing as the years pass on. *1/2 from ****
| 0
|
train_11536
|
It's hard to watch this movie without thinking forward to the television show it would become, especially if, like me, you happen to like the TV show more. But there's a lot to be said for the source.Oscar Madison (Walter Matthau) is a top New York City sportswriter who lives in an eight-room apartment by himself, a casualty of divorce and his own stubbornly sloppy mindset. Enter his friend Felix Ungar (Jack Lemmon), needing a place to live after his wife threw him out for his stubbornly neatnik mindset. The result is a train wreck and one of the most beloved movie adaptations of a Neil Simon stage play.First thing's first: I love that apartment! Poker table, novelty dart board, askew photos of baseball players, empty booze and beer containers, even a pair of Roman columns. It's a place where men can be boys. Simon and director Gene Saks do a great job opening up the stage play's single set, Oscar's living room, by moving the action into the bedrooms and kitchen and giving the mounting tension between Oscar and Felix more corners to bounce off of.Neal Hefti's familiar score was heard on the TV show, but never so sweepingly orchestrated as it is here, in several different arrangements that make the on-screen action soar whenever its played. Real location work and night shots of Manhattan give the film an energy common to films shot in that place and time ("Buddwing," "The World Of Henry Orient," "Midnight Cowboy," "Manchurian Candidate," "Rosemary's Baby," etc.)Are Lemmon and Matthau too heavy in comparison to Tony Randall and Jack Klugman? To be fair, the movie is meant to be a more serious affair, dealing with the then-uncommon condition of mid-life divorce and the frustration inherent in not being able to make a relationship work. Simon has more in mind than entering Felix and Oscar in a game of "Password" or a battle of wits with Howard Cosell. But I don't know...Both Lemmon and Matthau were terrific comedians I enjoy watching especially in the middle of this film as I often do in their separate movies, but I never understood why they were regarded as a great comedy team. Here, in their best-regarded partnership, they seem to be acting in two different films; Lemmon in a comedy-drama and Matthau in a farce. Matthau is great in the beginning, charming us with his teddy-bear demeanor around the poker table, but near the end of the film he takes a turn much like Jack Torrance's in "The Shining," reacting to Felix cleaning up his apartment and serving tasty food to his friends in a way that totally upsets the delicate balance of blame.While the ending bothers me, the part many see as the most jarring, the beginning, works fine as I see it. Watching Felix stumbling around trying to kill himself isn't great comedy, no, but it's a good way to get into a great comedy, setting us up with some real-life pain before bringing in the warmth and laughter. (Plus it has some great shots of the seedier parts of the city.) In the middle of the movie, this scene would have been a miscalculation, but it works as a way of establishing Felix's torment and a sense of sharp relief to come when we see Oscar and his poker friends bicker and feud.That's where Simon's lines are so great. They are the underlying strength of the film. He gets the banter exactly right and real, and still makes it funny. "I don't mind you talking, Felix. You got things to say. What's scaring me is I'm beginning to listen." The TV show showed how wrong it is to assume the movie is always better, in fact the TV show once made a good point about "assuming" anything at all, but the movie makes for a solid foundation and is a joy in its own right.
| 1
|
train_18286
|
When you look at this now and hear all the language in here, it's amazing this was rated "PG," but that's the 1970s rating system for you. Peter Falk spews out the Lord's name in vain six times in the first ten minutes alone in this movie! Yet, few people consider that offensive, and certainly not the scumbags who make movies nor the people who "rate" them.The cast is a clue to how profane this film can be: Falk, Peter Boyle, Allen Garfield, Warren Oates, Gena Rowlands and Paul Sorvino aren't exactly actors you wouldn't find in "The Sound Of Music."I like heist movies, and a lot of films by director William Friedkin, but this script doesn't deliver and it just has way too much of the "Sleazy '70s" feel to it, visually and audibly. For those who loved Falk in TV's "Columbo" it must come as a shock to hear him use as much profanity as he did in films. This is far from the only case.
| 0
|
train_21324
|
What can possibly said about this movie other than, "viewer beware". Christmas Evil should come with a warning label like cigarettes do, because this was harmful to my eyes and ears. I am rarely this unsatisfied with a "b" horror flick, but this movie couldn't even bring a little scare to a five year old. The point of a relentless lunatic that has a thirst for blood in a film is that he/she should seem almost god-like, like nothing can stop their maniacal rage, but in this film the resident psychopath gets himself stuck in a chimney in a bizarre attempt to surprise his next victim and of course follow along with the all to popular legend of santa claus, it's a reminder to the viewer that this man is in no way dangerous because he's far too stupid to be dangerous. All in all a total waste of film.
| 0
|
train_20414
|
This film was slated to be a blockbuster film, and it really is. This is the type of movie that is made to eat popcorn to and watch the flashy graphics. With that in mind, the movie delivers, perhaps not as well as the ultra flashy Iron Man, but well enough. Outside of the popcorn munching action and special effects, the film drops off of the cliff faster than Wile E. Coyote.Many viewers, myself included, will complain about how most of the characters were severely altered, but that only makes the film a poor adaptation, not a poor film. This film is unsatisfactory for other reasons. The makers focused more on making it appealing to the eye than they did to the mind. The characters that have been long awaited and promoted are reduced to 4-scene cameos. The main characters of Wolverine, Victor Creed (never called Sabertooth in the film) and Colonel Stryker are well developed. I was pleasantly surprised by Liev Schriber's performance. The rest of the characters are tossed to the wayside to make way for the all important eye-candy. Wolverine's character is fully developed after 30-minutes, as is Sabertooth, though Victor does pull off some surprises late in the film.The "final boss" of the film is a twisted and perverse adaptation of the original character and barely gets any development to show just why he is the way he is. The filmmakers obviously felt that all they really needed to do was create a bad ass character who could do anything they wanted and slapped on the name of a popular character.Very disappointing...
| 0
|
train_21811
|
The cover on the DVD and disc is freaking awesome, you would think they made a movie about sweet tooth from twisted metal black which is still a really great idea, but this movie's actors are worst then Ben's performance in pearl harbor, porno's have better quality and better actors. i was gonna buy the DVD but luckily i rented it first, the plot and script are also horrible, nothing seems to go to together so the movie really never makes sense. The poor attempts to frighten you using flashback scenes are worse then ones used in 80's sitcom shows and in the end it'll leave you wanting to bang your head against the wall of your house.
| 0
|
train_14416
|
This film is totally garbage. Some imbecilic intellectual comforting himself by making all his best to claim superiority of aristocrat over working class. Nothing more than a piece of self-complacence catharsis. Disgusting.If this kind of a movie is set in US, it will sure make itself a big joke. And simply because it comes out from 'the other side', it makes itself a masterpiece, a wonderful amusement for certain brain-washed and/or brain-washing westerns (some George W. maybe:). A typical cold-war sequelae, some kind of joke anyway.I would say, if this -- like expressed in this film -- is all what Soviet intellectuals had been thinking about all those years, then maybe they deserve all the miseries they claim they had gone through. BUT NO! 'cause like many others, I've read and watched real masterpieces made by real outstanding Soviet intellectuals. For example, something also relevant with dog, "White Bim Black Ear" -- both Gavriil Troyepolsky's book and Stanislav Rostotsky's movie -- is a real masterpiece. Real life, real tragedy, real sad, real pride and dignity, one of the real best of the Soviet era.
| 0
|
train_19156
|
This gets a two because I liked it as a kid, but it became so redundant that I just started to hate it... I can't give this a descriptive review because it would be restating one thing after the other, I probably wouldn't say anything that everyone else didn't say already.The only other thing about this show is that it's pretty nasty, with the kid with the boil to that twisted babysitter to the stupidity that runs around and about in it. I have a cousin that loves this show and he's the strangest and dumbest person I have met. This show should be pulled from the air. It's always the same thing over and over... They need to put better shows on Nick. I'm getting really really tired of stuff like this.
| 0
|
train_22182
|
To overcome the death of his wife, an old man does what anyone in his position would naturally do (at least in a Peter Greenaway movie): he and his son populate their home with eight and a half (one has no legs) women and embark on a sexual odyssey. This being a Greenaway film, there is lots of pretentious and uninteresting blabbering and of course there is unnecessary male nudity. In fact the father and son share a bed sleeping in the nude. Gross. Besides, who wants to see an old guy full frontal? For those who are not into the homo-erotic scene, one of the women likes to do the nasty with horses. There is no story - just a random collection of dull scenes.
| 0
|
train_1031
|
This series is set a year after the mission to Abydos in the movie Stargate. It explains a lot of the stuff that the movie neglected to mention. Such as, how was the Stargate activated without a human computer? Where did the Goa'uld (Ra's race) come from? How many are there? The first episode has a retired Jack O'Neill (spelled with 2 Ls) recalled to active duty by General George Hammond due to an attack by the shut down Stargate from Apophis, a powerful Goa'uld who killed four men and kidnapped one woman. We meet Samantha Carter, a brilliant scientist who claims that she should have gone through the Stargate the first time, and is determined to go through now. We find out that Daniel got married on Abydos, and that there are hundreds of Gate addresses that they can dial. Then Daniel's wife gets captured by Apophis and becomes his new queen. It continues in the second episode where General Hammond announces the formation of the SGC which includes nine teams, in which Jack's team will be SG-1 which consists of Jack, Samantha and Daniel. They go to Chulak, a Goa'uld homeworld to rescue Daniel's wife and another one captured at Abydos named Ska'ra. They get captured, and just as Apophis gives the order to kill them and many other prisoners, a Jaffa named Teal'c, First Prime of Apophis, saves them and goes to Earth with them, where he is made part of SG-1. That was only the beginning of the adventure. In the course of the show they have gone to the past and future, gotten transported to alternate realities, swapped bodies, grown old, met alien races which include a rebel alliance of Goa'uld called the Tok'ra, in which Samantha's Dad becomes a member, the Asgard, a cute little race in which we see Thor most often (he's Jack's buddy),and avoid global disaster by the skin of their teeth countless times.The show was recently canceled, but lasted ten seasons. In season nine, a new enemy called the Ori came in flaunting brand new powers, new dangers and bringing to light new mysteries surrounding the Stargate and its creators, the Ancients. Season nine and ten also saw the introduction to two new characters, Ben Browder as Cameron Mitchell, the new leader of SG-1 and Claudia Black as Vala MalDoran, a female human from another world who brings a new sense of fun to the team. Very well-produced, interesting characters, fantastic Special effects and a subtle love interest between Samantha and Jack, this one has it all. A different way of travelling the galaxy, and different kinds of adventures, this is one show you don't want to miss. Unlock the gate and step through. You won't regret it!
| 1
|
train_19306
|
Besides all of the technical mistakes ....How about a female flight attendant who's able to kill, all by herself, 4 out of the 7 terrorists (including ex marines), 2 of whom without even using a gun. Then, she lands the plane perfectly. We're not talking about Sigourney Weaver or Linda Hamilton; we're talking about a regular, frightened, yet very well composed flight attendant. :D How about the leader in charge of the assault/rescue squad, having a full-proof (according to the logic of the script) plan of sleep-gassing everyone and having someone from his team fly the plane. Only he decides at the spur of the moment to change plans and instead lead an attack on the terrorists, guns blazing, not knowing where the terrorists are, or how many, and not securing a position of advantage, so that his whole team gets easily wiped out. Yeah, that's using the old noggin. Only later to decide to use the sleep gas anyway. And it turns out useless for all intensive purposes.Bad as this movie was, though, I couldn't stop myself from watching and wondering, what next? :D I can't help but imagine all the excellent, unemployed script writers thinking to themselves, it's not fair. lol! :D
| 0
|
train_7596
|
The first episode immediately gave a good impression what to expect from the series! Mysteries waiting to be solved and a lot of good drama! I love the fact that they gradually reveal the stories concerning the characters! Explaining just enough to stay excited! Of course this show has some flaws! In the first two series there are some characters who for some reason don't show up in the third season! Many of the characters have a decent sent off but some of them just aren't there! Like Rose and her husband! Where the hell are they? What happened to them? Maybe they will return in later episodes! But it is a little inconsistent! That being said "Lost" manages to be thrilling every episode(especially the first two seasons)! That is a very hard thing to do! I do notice that in the third season the focus is more on character development than the mystery aspects of the show! This is not a bad thing! It even saves some episodes from getting boring! One of the elements that can be considered the strength of this show are the wonderful characters! You will grow to love these characters! Good or bad! But eventually I will want to see some mysteries to be solved and get closure! The danger of "Lost" getting canceled due to declining ratings is near! And that would be devastating!
| 1
|
train_13687
|
Nope, I am just not going to get with it here. I refuse to go along with the program. Don't you supposed that perhaps this movie is just a tad over-rated? Look at the reader comments and their star ratings: Most are 6/10, 7/10 or better. I think this is an instance when the ratings may say more about the people rendering them than the movie itself, which is unique. How many other sex fantasies about simulated bestiality complete with horse couplings have become mainstream hits as catalog DVD titles? I watched this movie with a pervading sense of anticipation, expecting fireworks, and instead got someone popping a Gucci shopping bag. It looked great, but once the thrill had been spent even the twist ending didn't do much to save it.The film's background story says it all: Director films about 25 minutes of borderline hardcore fake bestial sex for another movie, is informed the footage will not be appropriate, sets it aside, waits two or three years for a smattering of critical acclaim to build up, then constructs an entire feature around that 25 minutes, filming roughly 70 minutes of otherwise unrelated, excruciatingly boring footage and inserting the 25 minute chunk in as a dream sequence. That the 25 minutes of film in question is strikingly odd, original and shocking in a deliberate, calculated manner goes without saying. But we aren't here to evaluate that 25 minutes alone, we must consider the entire film, and ask ourselves why people are so enthusiastic about the movie? Or are they just enamored by it's background story and history of having been banned by people who were stupid enough to be offended by it?Perhaps it is an anti-clerical agenda that appeals to them. Hating the western religions of catholicism and Christianity is one of the few remaining socially acceptable bastions of intolerance -- Just today it was revealed that the BBC routinely skews their broadcasts with anti Christian & anti Western sentiment in the furtherance of political correctness. You can say anything you want about the Bible, pedopheliac priests, the institutionalized cruelty of the church, and how much white men and their inhuman religions suck the dimpled skin off a golf ball ... But say one negative thing about non-westernized religions, and you are toast. This movie was tailor made for such a sentiment, with a wrinkly old dried up priest who has an entirely unwholesome on screen relationship with two pretty 14 year old French boys complete with inappropriate touching, fawning, fondling, fumbling, groping, and patting of the backsides. Ewww.And then there is the horse couplings, photographed in such fetishistic closeup detail that portions of the film could be used as visual aids for a biology class on animal husbandry. Yes I understand the thematic relevance of the imagery -- large animal phallus's with a wealth of reproductive fluids just waiting to be unleashed like fire extinguishers -- but if I wanted to watch horses, you know, do it, I would like go live on a farm. Having their genitals in my face is about as entertaining as watching someone use a bathroom.Is this movie just a sort of artsy diversion for social deviants? Probably, though I will grant the artistic execution of most of it, filmed in a kind of arty Euro detail that even has a dappled forest pond right out of a Monet painting, complete with a spanning arched bridge. And the ending (which even I managed to be surprised by) does sort of wrap it all up into a neat if distasteful package. But you have to remember that there are certain things that cannot be deconstructed for their design elements and many artists are guilty for exploiting them in their work to lend a sort of gravitas that would not have been achieved without it. That isn't fair, and even Clint Eastwood has fallen prey to the urge with his new movie about Iwo Jima. Whether or not his film is any good stands as a separate consideration from whether or not that battle was a noble cause fought by men who were heroes. The problem is that most people will not be able to separate out the two aspects of the movie and will be lining up to give it Oscars because of it's noble message -- not because it is a particularly good or original movie.While it may seem like an odd parallel, I see one with THE BEAST: How can anyone not see the basic beauty of nature in the sight of two horses mating? And who cannot see the logical culmination of the repressed sexuality from fairy tales in the film's explosive set-piece where Beauty and the Beast finally do the nasty? Somehow I managed to miss both points, and am delighted that I have seen this film so that I can trash it as being what it really is: 25 minutes or so of eye opening over the top adult fairy tale imagery surrounded by 70 minutes of skull drainingly boring artsy-fartsy Euro Trash dreck about some guy getting a haircut, and a great ending. It's art for sure, but it sucks hard.3/10
| 0
|
train_508
|
In 2151, in Broken Bow, Oklahoma, a farmer shoots the Klingon Klaang with his plasma rifle after the explosion of a methane store in his farm and the Klingon is sent to the Starfleet Hospital. The Vulcan ambassador Soval proposes to unplug the life support system and bring the corpse of Klaang to his warrior empire in planet Kronos with honor. However, Captain Jonathan Archer proposes to go with the Enterprise in her first voyage and bring back Klaang alive to his home planet. Jonathan invites Ensign Hoshi Sato and Dr. Phlox, who is treating Klaang, to complete his crew, and the Vulcan Sub-Commander T'Pol is assigned to participate in the dangerous first mission of Enterprise. When the equipment of the starship is shut-down, Klaang is kidnapped by Sulibans after a shooting in the hospital. After the autopsy of the Suliban killed in the shooting, Captain Archer is informed by Dr. Phlox that the alien was actually a mutant, altered in a sophisticated genetic engineering process. T'Pol modifies the sensors of the Enterprise to track the Suliban spacecraft until she reaches planet Riger X. They investigate and disclose that Klaang was a courier, bringing an important message about the Temporal Cold War from the Suliban Sarin to the leaders of the Klingons in Kronos.In spite of being a huge fan of Star Trek, I have not followed the episodes of "Enterprise" on cable television. I have decided to buy the DVD box of the First Season and this first episode surprised me. The adventure of the first Enterprise, Captain Jonathan Archer, the gorgeous T'Pol, Reed, Mayweather, Dr. Phlox, Hoshi and Trip is excellent, at least in this pilot. I have noted in IMDb that this episode is actually divides in two parts, but on DVD they are just one, therefore my review is valid for both. I did not like the music score theme, which I found very annoying, but this was an exception in this great show. My vote is nine.Title (Brazil): "Broken Bow"
| 1
|
train_8886
|
I wasn't alive in the 60's, so I can't guarantee that this movie was a completely accurate representation of the period, but it is certainly a moving and fulfilling experience. There are some excellent performances, most notably by Josh Hamilton (of With Honors), Jerry O'Connell (Sliders), who play brothers divided by the war. Bill Smitrovich, a character actor who has been long ignored by many, gives a heart-filled performance as their strict father, who is forced to question his own beliefs and values as one of his sons makes him proud by going to Vietnam but returns empty inside, while the other is exactly the opposite. All in all, this is a powerful and heartwarming film that I hope everyone gets a chance to experience.
| 1
|
train_4653
|
This is a rip-roaring British comedy movie and one that i could watch over and over again without growing tired. Peter Ustinov has never performed in a bad role and this is no exception, particularly with his dry wit but very clever master plan. Karl Malden has always been an admirer of mine since he starred in 'Streets of San Francisco'. I believe that Maggie Smith is the real star of this film though, appearing to be so inept at everything she tries to do but in truth is so switched on, particularly at the end when she informs everyone that she has invested so much money that she has discovered whilst laundering his clothes. One thing does concern me though, could someone please tell me why i cannot purchase this on either DVD or VHS format in the UK, could someone please assist?
| 1
|
train_889
|
This is one of the best Hong Kong (action) films around and it has a tense and exciting storyline as well as great fight scenes. This Sammo film has it all, Romance, Drama, Excitement and a great hero as well. It is the only martial arts film that got me interested in the plot rather than just waiting for the fights. Sammo fans- This is a must see (See also Eastern Condors, Shanghai Express (Yuen Biao is Ace!), Dragons Forever and Enter the Fat Dragon.
| 1
|
train_23306
|
If you are a fan of really bad movies, and you think there funny, you will the great acting of Shaq. First off putting pro players in movies hardly ever works. Shaq had to of been the worst actor i have ever seen next to Dennis Rodman who also made a few bad movies. Well any way this movie is also bad due to the hideous kid. I would give this a zero but that is impossible.
| 0
|
train_3862
|
As I am always looking for something new and unique, I watched this film online. I thought that it would be just another "B" rate movie but I was amazed at the acting by the two main characters. All of the actors in this film were very capable and well directed. The plot was wonderful and unique as well with an excellent moral to the story.This movie is definitely not for someone looking for a sex romp, "Dumb and Dumber" or blood and guts. This is a wonderfully poignant film showing some grim realities of life coupled with the kindness of the human heart and just enough frivolity to keep it interesting.I would prefer this movie to many "A" rate movies I have seen even a great number with high box office earnings.I highly recommend this movie.
| 1
|
train_23078
|
Horror fans (I'm speaking to the over 12's, although if you're under 12 I apologise for what you might deem an insult): In short, if you appreciate having your imagination disturbed by well written, original storytelling, punctuated by unpredictable well planted scares, and delivered via convincing performances, then I can heartily recommend - AVOIDING THESE STEAMERS - made by directors who have apparently long since past their sell by date. It's no accident that almost every episode feels as if it were made in the 1980's. Not to put blame squarely on the shoulders of some of these old boys (or indeed the 80's) because where would we be without certain movies from the likes of Argento, Carpenter, Landis, Dante and Barker (Actually Clive, WTF are you doing in there?! Glad to see Romero had the good sense to give it a miss as I'm sure he was asked to partake...). More perhaps we should point the finger at creator Mick Garris whose credentials include the logic defying and depressingly ill-advised TV remake of Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece 'The Shining'.Perhaps it is an indication of the state of television today. Are we so starved of good TV horror that we applaud any old sloppy schlock that the networks excrete onto our sets? Sadly, maybe so.Normally I wouldn't see the point of adding a comment that doesn't argue the faults and merits of a production, I'd just rate it accordingly. However, as this series is woefully lacking in any merit (with perhaps the sole exception of the theme tune) I write this as more of a warning than a review: DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME AND MONEY. If you disagree with me then it's more than likely that you haven't seen enough decent horror. Perhaps the earlier films of some of these directors would be a much better place to start, but if these 'Masters' of Horror were being assessed on these works alone, they'd never have been allowed to graduate with even their Bachelor's degree. Unless of course they were studying for a degree from the University Of S**t.
| 0
|
train_19151
|
This is absolutely the worst movie I've seen all year.First, I will say that the acting was very good, and by all of the cast.This was apparently meant to be very offbeat, and in that regard it succeeded. By the same token, the story revolves around a self-centered wannabe, who is a clueless, talentless chronic liar, whose source of self confidence comes from a pair of leather slippers.This was worse than watching a car wreck.
| 0
|
train_3265
|
I've always been a big Cybill Shepperd fan, ever since I saw her series a few years ago!! This film certainly shows her in her best light yet!! The film was so wonderfully cast and played!! Every now and again she drops little amusing lines, just to make this film one of the best I've ever seen!! Everybody really out does themselves!! Especially Robert Downey Jr and Cybill Shepperd, they really made the film come true!! Also I loved the little bit where Mavis loses her wig and she nearly dies when she falls to the floor!! This is film at its best!!
| 1
|
train_18848
|
Utterly pretentious nonsense. The material is dull, dull, dull, and most of the cast wouldn't even have made understudies in Allen's earlier films. And to have to listen to the unfunny Will Ferrell do his Woody Allen imitation makes me loathe the second-rate (though mysteriously popular) Ferrell even more. It appears that the morose 70-year old Allen should have knocked off work when the clock rang in a new century.I truly tried to get involved in the film, but it was just impossible; my snyapses couldn't fire that slowly. So, rather than doze off and kill the afternoon sleeping in an upright position I got up, left my wife and daughter in the theater, and went out to the car where I had a really good book to re-read (George Bailey's great tome of 30 years ago, "Germans.") The day turned out pretty well after all, no thanks to Woody.
| 0
|
train_12759
|
photography was too jumpy to follow. dark scenes hard to see.Had good story line too bad it got lost somewhere. Too noisy for what was really happening Bottom line is it's a baddddd movie
| 0
|
train_6392
|
This independent, B&W, DV feature consistently shocks, amazes and amuses with it's ability to create the most insane situations and then find humor and interest in them. It's all hilarious and ridiculous stuff, yet as absurd as much of the film should be, there is a heart and a reality here that keeps the film grounded, keeps the entire piece from drifting into complete craziness and therein lies the real message here. This film is about how we all survive in a world gone mad. That seems to be the heart of the film. For as insane and off the wall as things get, Leon, the 30 yr. old paperboy-protagonist, always tries to keep it together. He's like a child forever trying to catch the balloon that is floating away so that everything will work out for the best, so that everyone can have what they want.The acting in the film could have went far over the top but the exceptional cast really keeps the piece cohesive. Van Meter is perhaps the best of the bunch here with a performance that shines through her absurd diseased tics. Just as the characters in the film do, we overlook her sudden outbursts to see the real person underneath. Majkowski is a true genius here. He takes the utmost ridiculous plot twists and keeps them real. It is his script and his cast that help keep the whole thing afloat. It's a true testament to the skill of Majkowski and all involved that this film, with it's grating plot and characters, never once works our nerves. Majkowski has taken a film that could have been abrasive and repugnant, and somehow given it heart and humor. This is a unique film. Not to be missed.
| 1
|
train_13165
|
In Bridgeport, the deranged high school teacher Richard Fenton (Johnathon Schaech) is obsessed by the teenager student Donna Keppel (Brittany Snow); she witnesses him murder her family to stay with her, but Richard is arrested and sent to prison for life. Three years later, the traumatized Donna is feeling better but is still under psychological treatment and taking pills. On her prom night, she goes with her boyfriend Bobby (Scott Porter) and two couples of friends to the Pacific Grad Hotel for the party. But the psychopath Richard has escaped from prison and is lodged in the same floor in the hotel chasing Donna, stabbing her friends and staff of the hotel that cross his path.The forgettable slash "Prom Night" is a collection of clichés with a total lack of originality. The stupid story is shallow and silly, with a bad acting of Johnathon Schaech in the role of an insane killer. The predictable screenplay is amazing since it is possible to foresee what is going to happen in the next scenes. My vote is three.Title (Brazil): "A Morte Convida Para Dançar" ("The Death Invites to Dance")
| 0
|
train_14593
|
If you like a syfi soap opera this show is for you, as fare as I am concerned it does not work for me and after watching 3 episodes I just can't watch it anymore. It is boring and slow and for a show that the timeline is based around 100.000+ years ago if you base it on battlestar galactica's timeline for arriving on earth they sure seem to have all the same stuff around like the 100.000 year old Chevy vans driving down the streets and people watching the 100.000 year old popular name brand LCD T.V. sets. It also goes the same with the rest of the sets as well on the show, there is just to much of today's stuff involved in it to not overlook, I think they could have done a lot better of a job to get around these issues and yes battlestar galactica had some of the same issues but not nearly as bad. As fare as the rest of the show it is not nearly as good as BSG was and it is a poor pre sequel to it
.
| 0
|
train_23500
|
Words cannot describe how utterly abysmal this movie is. It is a series of random, unfunny clips about everything from a stupid Batman spoof to a guy getting it on with an old dead lady (REALLY disturbing). The only remotely amusing thing about the Underground Comedy Movie is watching Joey Buttafuoco, the best actor in this movie. Also, it is rated NC-17, shunning away the only people that might tolerate it.
| 0
|
train_11583
|
The Fury of the Wolfman is a very good film that has a good cast which includes Paul Naschy/Jacinto Molina, Perla Cristal, Verónica Luján, Mark Stevens, Francisco Amorós, Fabián Conde, Miguel de la Riva, Ramón Lillo, José Marco, Javier de Rivera, and Pilar Zorrilla! The acting by all of these actors is very good. The Wolfman is really cool! He looks great and he sound like the Looney Tunes character the Tazmainian devil! There are some really hilarious scenes in this film! The thrills is really good and some of it is surprising. The movie is filmed very good. The music is good. The film is quite interesting and the movie really keeps you going until the end. This is a very good and thrilling film. If you like Paul Naschy/Jacinto Molina, Perla Cristal, Verónica Luján, Mark Stevens, Francisco Amorós, Fabián Conde, Miguel de la Riva, Ramón Lillo, José Marco, Javier de Rivera, Pilar Zorrilla, the rest of the cast in the film, Werewold films, Horror, Sci-Fi, Thrillers, Dramas, and interesting classic films then I strongly recommend you to see this film today! Movie Nuttball's NOTE: I got this film on a special DVD that has Doctor Blood's Coffin, The Brainiac, and The Fury of the Wolfman from Vintage Home Entertainment! See if you can find this winner with three bizarre but classic films on one DVD at Amazon.com today! If you like Werewolf films I strongly recommend these: Werewolf of London (1935), The Wolf Man (1941), Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943), House of Frankenstein (1944), Abbott an d Costell Meets Frankenstein (1948), The Curse of the Werewolf (1961), An American Werewolf in London (1981), Silver Bullet (1985), Werewolf (1987), The Monster Squad (1987), My Mom's a Werewolf (1989), Project: Metalbeast (1995), Bad Moon (1996), Werewolf (1996), Dog Soldiers (2002), Underworld (2003), and Van Helsing (2004)!
| 1
|
train_15699
|
Joe Don Baker. He was great in "Walking Tall" and had a good bit-part in "Goldeneye", but here in "Final Justice" all hope is gone...the dark side has won. As with most of humanity, my main experience with this one was on MST3K, and what an experience it was! Mike and the robots dig their claws deep into Baker's ample flesh and skewer this flick completely. It's obvious they were just beginning with "Mitchell" on their anti-Joe Don kick and here lies their continuation on a theme.It makes for a funny experience, though: there are plenty of choice riffs. My favorites - "John Rhys-Davies for sale", "It's 'Meatloaf: Texas Ranger'", "none of them are sponge-worthy", "Why was she wearing her prom dress to bed", and my favorite - "'Son of a...'? What? What was he the son of: son of a PREACHER MAN?"By itself, "Final Justice" is, as Joe Don puts it in the movie, "a big fat nada". But here, it actually has some entertainment value. You get a chance, catch THIS version of "Final Justice".Two stars for "Final Justice". Ten for the MST3K version ONLY.Oh, and try not to visit Malta when Joe Don's in town.
| 0
|
train_7868
|
Yet again, Madhur Bhandarkar takes you on a ride to the wild side. And a remarkable one it is, literally and figuratively.Mumbai hi-society -- stars and starlets, glam dolls and witch doctors, business tycoons and broker types, yep the whole stinking lot -- are in sharp focus here. In typical tabloid fashion, their worlds unfold, with every colorful story a clever sub-plot in itself.A struggling starlet dumped by the producer after getting her pregnant, the stewardess and her high-profile husband, the pedophile businessman and his neurotic wife, the reporters and the police captain; all shades on display and countless hues in between.Bhandarkar does a swell job of digging up the dirt on the drama kings, the dancing queens and the living dead. Atul Kulkarni packs a punch, as does Boman Irani and Sandhya Mrudul. Konkona Sen Sharma is effective as the ex-crime beat reporter, but she could have been dolled up a little in keeping with the job change and the party circuit.Highly focused (running time 140 min) and refreshingly different film, well worth the money.
| 1
|
train_8507
|
Well you take O.J. Simpson as a all american soldier turned all american bus driver who decides to rescue his passengers on his own just incase no one else is going to and Arte Johnson in an absolutely straight role as the tour guide who doesn't know what to do but doesn't want to admit they are in trouble and combine it with Lorenzo Lamas as one of three baby faced bad boys who intend to kidnap an heiress and leave a busload of people to die on the dessert and you have got to have action, plot twists and a lot of drama. Everyone was good but seeing Lamas as the baddest of the bad boys really blew my mind. He was much too believable as the overbearing bad guy who not only wanted to kidnap the heiress but rape the women and humiliate the guy who tried to stop him. This was evidently long before he cultivated his good guy image. And believe me a 20 year old Lorenzo in tight jeans you really don't want to miss!
| 1
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.