id
stringlengths 7
11
| text
stringlengths 52
10.2k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|---|
train_20888
|
Comes this heartwarming tale of hope. Hope that you'll never have to endure anything this awful again. *cough* Razzie award *cough*I disliked this movie because it was unfunny, predictable and inane. While watching I felt like I was in a psychology experiment to determine how low movie standards could get before people complained. When I requested my money back at the end of the movie I was informed that because I watched the whole thing 'I wasn't entitled to reimbursement'. I was told by the assistant manager that several people had complained and gotten refunds already though.The movie summary is pretty basic. The midget thief steals a diamond and the poses as a baby to elude police. Underneath this clever outline however, lies a repertoire of original, fresh and hilarious skits. Or not.Ask yourself the following: Do you like to see people getting hit by pans? Do you like fart jokes? Do you like to see midgets posing as babies threatened with a thermometer in the anus? Do you like tired racial jokes? Do you think babies say 'goo goo goo goo goo gaa gaa'? Do you drool?If you answered 'yes' to any of the above then this movie is definitely for you. Although it has been billed in some places as 'The Worst Movie of the Decade', there is probably a movie or 2 that are worse...somewhere. I can't say for sure. I gave this movie 2 stars because we all know a review with only one star would indicate bias on the part of the reviewer and then the review wouldn't be taken seriously. This lowbrow comedy is intended for a less intelligent audience and I cannot in good conscience recommend it to anyone. Save your money for something funny.Respect
| 0
|
train_13052
|
I sat through almost one episode of this series and just couldn't take anymore. It felt as though I'd watched dozens of episodes already, and then it hit me.....There's nothing new here! I've heard that joke on Seinfeld, I saw someone fall like that on friends, an episode of Happy Days had almost the same storyline, ect. None of the actors are interesting here either! Some were good on other shows (not here), and others are new to a profession they should have never entered. Avoid this stinker!
| 0
|
train_20871
|
I think its pretty safe to say that this is the worst film ever made, When I saw the trailer on TV i knew right from second 1 that this would be a piece of **** and it would be best to avoid it, but I somehow got dragged into seeing this by some friends, I walked into the cinema with low expectations but i was hoping there would be a couple of cheap laughs to keep me awake during this film. The so-called "jokes" in this film bring a cringe to the face, they are mostly comprised of people taking hits to the face and balls, the baby looking weird and acting like a horny gangsta and the typical race jokes we see so often in todays garbage comedies. The film is obvious and the story is not only impossible to believe but also predictable and dull. The characters are extremely annoying and heavily stereotyped. I never want to have to see this **** film again, I'd rather take a bullet to the foot than be exposed to this piece of fuckwood ever again. If anyone I see says they liked it i will physically punch them in the face
| 0
|
train_4803
|
It's hard to find an outright bad historical drama that's based on the life of any number of British monarchs. Just take a well respected British or Australian actor, make things look pretty, and you're guaranteed a formula for Oscar success.The Young Victoria is no exception, getting just about everything right, the cinematography striking and beautiful, with soft lights and lush colors and fabrics. Starring Emily Blunt in a role she can finally soar in, the film begins with Victoria's 18th birthday and moves through the intrigue and issues that surrounded her eventual rise to the throne and her famous marriage to Prince Albert (Rupert Friend). As the young Victoria herself laments, she's moved like a chess pawn by a variety of parties as she finds her footing and her voice as one of Britain's most influential rulers.While this moving around the chess board is fairly typical territory, it is the development of Victoria's relationship with Albert that makes the film slightly more interesting. I confess: I have a degree in history with a specialization in the Victorian era, so I'm a bit attached to these figures. Despite their many flaws as rulers, Victoria and Albert were some of the first leaders devoted to improving civilization for their people. They left their legacy in the arts, in public health and education, and in Victoria's conservative views and mourning culture after Albert's death. But these things are only briefly hinted at during the film.It is fairly well established that Victoria and Albert were not only madly in love, but held a level of respect for each other not usually seen between monarchs in arranged marriages. Even if it did occur behind the scenes, their's was certainly one of the best known. Blunt and and Friend have just the right type of chemistry to do the famous pair justice, the proper mix of restraint and desperation. It's a different love, not usually shown on screen, especially in this sort of film. It's encouraging to finally see a relationship in which man and woman are on a equal playing field.But we don't get to see that love enough. While the filmmakers try to fit the affair amongst the political trappings, it doesn't quite build up the sort of momentum needed to keep the tension high. Also, without delving into the more advanced important public work of the pair, things feel a bit in limbo, superficial instead of intimate, and sometimes confusing. It's not as big an issue during the film, but afterward, the effects wear off rather quickly and you find yourself trying to remember what you just watched, despite the perfect performances by the leads, most noticeably Blunt who even captures the famous monarch's expressions.For as much as it tries, Victoria succeeds on many levels but lacks that certain sparkle that would take it from solid to classic.
| 1
|
train_11117
|
Not only do the storylines in "The Sopranos" engage audiences from all over, but I think (for me at least) what brings the viewers back is the acting. (Not even you, Gary, can dispute that claim) James Gandolfini, who plays the lead-man, Tony Soprano, has become (in this viewer's opinion) one of the "Hollywood Elites" as far as acting in a television series goes. I wouldn't go ahead and compare him with Robert DeNiro or Al Pacino, or at least, not just yet. He, however, does do a hell of a job playing the part of Tony Soprano. In the years since 1999, Gandolfini has risen so much so as an actor (mainly thanks to his role in The Sopranos) that today he is considered to be among the best in the business. And it's not just him. "The Sopranos" fields a great supporting cast including that of Lorraine Bracco, Edie Falco, Michael Imperioli, Dominic Chianese, and the late Nancy Marchand who played Tony's dreadful mother. At this point in the show's existence, it's being considered a cult-classic and rightfully so. The first two seasons were extraordinary. Violent and quite gruesome in a pretty frequent manner, but without a doubt, extraordinarily done. The third season was great, but didn't quite live up to the hype of seasons 1 and 2. Season 4, which wrapped up right before new-years, was the weakest season yet (or at least, in my opinion it was). Despite a dry-spell, I still found it (season 4 of "The Sopranos") to be more entertaining than most of its competition and that's saying a lot because lately I've been noticing a trend in good new television shows. Examples of this: Six Feet Under, The Shield, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and OZ (which is not technically a new show but ended with an unforgettable final season this year). To get back to my point though, to consider a show better than all the competition during a particularly bad year, no less, is quite an accomplishment on the part of the writers. "The Sopranos" ranks above and beyond all other television shows in its era and its writers deserve a lot of credit. To close, I'd like to say, "The Sopranos" is the real deal folks. For the average mature viewer (17 and above) who enjoys drama and doesn't mind a mixing of a little violence and profanity, you might want to check out "The Sopranos" if you get the chance. Trust me in that it will be well worth the time.
| 1
|
train_14076
|
this film has it all; the deft camera work, reminiscent of martin scorcese, or oliver stone, the tight acting of 'heat', the explosive action of a jerry bruckheimer movie, the witty dialogue of a tarantino script and the epic feel of say, 'the godfather'the judge reinhold character displays a fiery temperememt, yet also shows real emotional depth and intensity. his performance reminds me of robert de niro's portrayal of jake la motta in raging bull.the action scenes are truly breathtaking, not since bullit has a movie depicted such high octane, yet stylish car scenes. The special effects push the boundries of technology and filmmaking to their limits. Independance day set the standard that this movie clearly has matched, and greatly surpassed.overall, great acting from its a list cast (like an oscars night party invitation list!), classy locations, gripping action, and a tight script.
| 0
|
train_8450
|
Was'nt really bad for Raw's first PPV of 006. But the ending was really really shocking to everyone in attendance & the ones who were watching at home.FIRST MATCH- RIC FLAIR VS. EDGE W/ LITA FOR THE WWE INTERCONTINENTAL CHAMPIONSHIP Not a bad opener, these two can seriously put on a great match if they had more time to put on a wrestling match. Flair wins by DQ after Edge slams him with his MITB briefcase. 3/10 SECOND MATCH- TRISH STRATUS VS. MICKIE JAMES FOR THE WWE WOMEN'S CHAMPIONSHIP Not bad noticing the fact that this is the first time these Divas faced off in the ring together. Mickie goes for a modified Chick Kick, but Trish ducks & nails her own Chick Kick for the win to retain her title. 3/10 THIRD MATCH- TRIPLE H VS. BIG SHOW Seriously good this match was, really. The whole match HHH focuses on Big Show's injured arm but Big Show still fights back. Later HHH is able to topple down Big Show & nails a Pedigree for the win. 5/10 FOURTH MATCH- SHELTON BENJAMIN W/ MAMA VS. VISCERA {This was a bonus match} Not that bad, it was alright. After Viscera was down, behind the referee, Benjamin's mama got a purse {Which had bricks in it} & slammed Viscera on the head with it three times. Viscera got up only to get caught with a spinning heel kick by Benjamin for the win against the big man. 4/10FIFTH MATCH- JERRY 'THE KING' LAWLER VS. GREGORY HELMS Boring, slow & sloppy. Both men didn't really put a very good effort. Jerry Lawler wins after a Fist Drop for the win. 2/10SIXTH MATCH- TORRIE Wilson VS. VICTORIA VS. ASHLEY VS. MARIA VS. CANDICE MICHELLE IN A FIRST EVER WOMEN'S GAUNTLET MATCH It was pretty entertaining to me. Ashley {I think} eliminates Candice last to win the first ever Women's Gauntlet match. 5/10 SEVENTH MATCH- JOHN CENA VS. CHRIS MASTERS VS. CARLITO VS. SHAWN MICHAELS VS. KANE VS. KURT ANGLE W/ DAIVARI IN AN ELIMINATION CHAMBER MATCH FOR THE WWE CHAMPIONSHIP It was a cool Elimination chamber match. But nothing will top last year's Elimination Chamber which was the best. The last three are Masters, Cena & Carlito. Carlito turns his back on Masters & gets a roll-up on him to eliminate him. Seconds later Cena gets a roll-up on Carlito for the three count to win the Elimination Chamber & retain his WWE Title. But his night was not over yet. 7/10 After the match, Vince McMahon comes out & congratulates Cena for his victory. Vince McMahon states that his night is not over yet, & says that Edge cashes in his Money In The Bank opportunity to challenge Cena for the title. Edge comes out with Lita, gives the briefcase to Vince & heads off in the ring as Cena has one more match to go here tonight.EIGHT MATCH- JOHN CENA VS. EDGE W/ LITA FOR THE WWE CHAMPIONSHIP {Cena who is busted open during the Chamber match} gets pounded straight away by Edge, Edge then nails a Spear on Cena, goes for the cover & to his shock Cena breaks out. Edge nails another Spear & covers for the shocking three count as he has beat Cena & has won the WWE Championship for the first time in his career. 1/10 So last year's New Years Revolution was better than this year's, but it was still alright. The EC match was also good & the shocking of Edge cashing in his MITB opportunity is definitely the most shockingest on the PPV show.Overall: I'll give it 7/10 & a C
| 1
|
train_4186
|
I watched this flick yesterday and I have to say it's the finest horror film made for $36,000 I've ever seen (Sorry Steckler) The film is definitely worth seeking out if you are a zombie fan. This movie reeks of soul and atmosphere. Some of the shots of the zombs are the best ever committed to film. VERY creepy looking dusty webbed corpses slowly shamble to their screaming victims. Brrrrrrr.Hot saggy Canadian women with sexy accents will keep you preoccupied before the HORROR rears its undead corpse eating head. This film entertained from start to finish. I couldn't ask for more than that. My only complaint is that is was too short.
| 1
|
train_9036
|
My wife did not realize what a gem this movie was when she picked it up. It is a story that shows real world success through hard work and determination.That is so refreshing in a world of violent movies not that I dis-like them), but you have to love a movie that succeeds without it.
| 1
|
train_12999
|
The Horror Channel plays nothing but erotic soft porn Gothic flicks each night from 10pm till about 4 in the morning, but their 'scare' factor is very limited, if one exists at all. In fact I am sure I will find a multi-million pound lottery win more scary than anything this channel has to offer.The Bloodsucker Leads the Dance deserves special mention because it is I feel, the undisputed low of a channel full of lows. I cannot even begin to tell you how bad this film is, but for the purpose of completing the minimum 10 lines demanded by this site, I will at least give it a go.Firstly the title is misleading and bears no resemblance to the action on the screen. In fact the film might as well have been called 'Toothbrush' or 'Wallpaper' for all it has to do with the plot. At least they used toothbrushes...at least they had wallpaper.There are no bloodsuckers for miles around and whats even worse there are no dances, not one. I'm sure they were making two different films by mistake here.A more suitable title would have been, 'Horny Italian Count Leads Five People to a Scary Castle and Bores us Silly for Ninety Minutes.' Yes that fits better.The acting is terrible and and the dubbing appalling, and that guy who plays Seymour was almost as wooden in his walk as he was in his character....abysmal.The only saving graces of this film are a small but slightly interesting lesbian sex scene, two small and very interesting heterosexual sex scenes, and the added attraction in that every single female character gets her kit off. Bonus.Otherwise steer a wide birth away from this one. No vampires, no dancing, no scenes of a brutal or gruesome nature and no way on Gods earth I will ever, ever, ever watch this one again.No word of a lie, this film could put you off motion pictures for life.
| 0
|
train_23405
|
Guy is a loser. Can't get girls, needs to build up, is picked on by stronger more successful guys, etc. Seen it, saw it, moved on. I'd have to say that Rob needs to move past the Adam Sandler part of his life. And get out of the Adam Sandler plots. There are two funny parts in the whole movie. I couldn't even finish the last 5 minutes. I was getting bored. "The Animal" is an alright film. I do usually enjoy Adam Sandler films that have the same plot. But this was trying too hard to impress. The jokes are very old. So, trust me. This is not a film that most people could really get into. But some did, so I'll be nice.3/10
| 0
|
train_13258
|
This show stinks. For parents, they usually want their kids to watch something good for them. It is usually educational, funny, and bright.Is it educational? No. the Doodlebops sing and that's it. They usually sing about themselves, they don't try teaching anything.Is it funny? No. The Doodlebops instead say something which is not intended as a joke, and laugh at it.Is it bright? It's so bright, it's painful. As far as color,s everything is extremely bright, so that's good. But NOTHING is ever wrong in the world of the Doodlebop's. Therefore, they are always happy. a kid in trouble will become depressed because they have never been exposed to being sad.The show is also extremely cheesy. Every syllable is said to the highest level of exaggeration and very corny. It's overkill.For kids, it's entertaining, but past the age of 2 you won't want your kids to see it. They'll never know how to grow up.
| 0
|
train_2913
|
"This Man's Navy" is, as other comments have indicated, a rare and well-filmed look at Navy lighter than air (LTA) activities. The LTA crews were justly proud that the convoys they shadowed never lost a ship to submarine attack. And the filming at the various NAS locations give a valuable glimpse at a type of aviation that is long gone. However, the first half of the movie is all about Beery, his relationship with his service pals, and him meeting the Tom Drake character and his mother, and getting Drake's leg fixed. Only then does the second film start. The second film is mostly LTAs in action, taking on a surfaced sub, guys get killed and much damage is caused. The look is fairly gritty and realistic, I imagine. Then we shift to Southeast Asia. Did the Navy have LTAs there? Never mind, this part is really wild, with a blimp being used to extract some downed aircrew from the jungle. And the Japs are shooting like mad. Shades of Vietnam, except the getaway is oh, so leisurely. This is a blimp we're talking about. In the end, a feel-good WWII drama about a very unusual part of the war.
| 1
|
train_1325
|
I saw this film at the Adelaide Film Festival '07 and was thoroughly intrigued for all 106 minutes. I like documentaries, but often find them dragging with about 25 minutes to go. Forbidden Lie$ powered on though, never losing my interest.The film's subject is Norma Khoury, a Jordanian woman who found fame and fortune in 2001 with the publication of her book Forbidden Love, a biographical story of sorts concerning a Muslim friend of hers who was murdered by her family for having a relationship with a Christian man. A few years later though, a few journalists started poking holes in the story, leading the public to believe it was fraud. The film covers this quickly but thoroughly in the beginning, and from there we spend most of our time in the company of Norma as she tries to convince us that her novel is more than fiction.Director Anna Broinowski has found a truly fascinating woman to study, and she conducts endless interviews with Khoury as she seeks the truth. As always in life, the truth is not so easy to find. Norma fears for her life, worried about violent backlash over the unsavoury portrait her novel paints of Jordanian Muslims. She refuses to return to Jordan and show us the facts. Broinowski is not deterred however, and slowly puts the pieces together in front of us.The result is an incredible look inside the mind of a con artist. Naturally, what we find there makes little sense and is extremely difficult to follow, and ultimately we don't know whether to believe Norma or not. She's either a rather unfairly put-upon woman trying to survive, or a fantastic spinster. The web of lies, truths and half-truths she turns through the film is brilliant.The film uses much interview footage, as well as dramatisations to tell it's story, and Broinowski uses these dramatisations to show us why people like Norma are able to exist: we want to be conned. We go to the cinema every day and allow ourselves to believe what's happening on the screen is real. That might just be me reading into things a bit too much, it didn't come up in the Q&A with Brionowski after the film, but that's what I took away from it.This is a great Australian film, and must receive an international release, and a swag of awards if you ask me. Certainly the best film I saw at AFF07.Go see it, if you get the chance.
| 1
|
train_12535
|
Sexo Cannibal, or Devil Hunter as it's more commonly known amongst English speaking audiences, starts with actress & model Laura Crawford (Ursula Buchfellner as Ursula Fellner) checking out locations for her new film along with her assistant Jane (Gisela Hahn). After a long days work Laura is relaxing in the bath of her room when two very dubious character's named Chris (Werner Pochath) & Thomas (Antonio Mayans) burst in & kidnap her having been helped by the treacherous Jane. Laura's agent gets on the blower to rent-a-hero Peter Weston (Al Cliver) who is informed of the situation, the kidnappers have Laura on an isolated island & are demanding a 6 million ransom. Peter is told that he will be paid 200,000 to get her back safely & a further 10% of the 6 million if he brings that back as well, faster than a rat up a drain pipe Peter & his Vietnam Vet buddy helicopter pilot Jack are on the island & deciding on how to save Laura. So, the kidnappers have Laura & Peter has the 6 million but neither want to hand them over that much. Just to complicate things further this particular isolated island is home to a primitive tribe (hell, in all the generations they've lived there they've only managed to build one straw hut, now that's primitive) who worship some cannibal monster dude (Burt Altman) with bulging eyes as a God with human sacrifices & this cannibal has a liking for young, white female flesh & intestines...This Spanish, French & German co-production was co-written & directed by the prolific Jesus Franco who also gets the credit for the music as well. Sexo Cannibal has gained a certain amount of notoriety here in the UK as it was placed on the 'Video Nasties' list in the early 80's under it's alternate Devil Hunter title & therefore officially classed as obscene & banned, having said that I have no idea why as it is one bad film & even Franco, who isn't afraid to be associated with a turkey, decides he wants to hide under the pseudonym of Clifford Brown. I'd imagine even the most die-hard Franco fan would have a hard time defending this thing. The script by Franco, erm sorry I mean Clifford Brown & Julian Esteban as Julius Valery who was obviously another one less than impressed with the finished product & wanted his named removed, is awful. It's as simple & straight forward as that. For a start the film is so boring it's untrue, the kidnap plot is one of the dullest I've ever seen without the slightest bit of tension or excitement involved & the horror side of things don't improve as we get a big black guy with stupid looking over-sized bloodshot eyes plus two tame cannibal scenes. As a horror film Sexo Cannibal fails & as an action adventure it has no more success, this is one to avoid.Director Franco shows his usual incompetence throughout, a decapitated head is achieved by an actor lying on the ground with large leaves placed around the bottom of his neck to try & give the impression it's not attached to anything! The cannibal scenes are poor, the action is lame & it has endless scenes of people randomly walking around the jungle getting from 'A' to 'B' & not really doing anything when they get there either. It becomes incredibly dull & tedious to watch after about 10 minutes & don't forget this thing goes on for 94 minutes in it's uncut state. I also must mention the hilarious scene when Al Cliver is supposed to be climbing a cliff, this is achieved by Franco turning his camera on it's side & having Cliver crawl along the floor! Just look at the way his coat hangs & the way he never grabs onto to anything as he just pulls himself along! The gore isn't that great & as far as Euro cannibal films go this is very tame, there are some gross close ups of the cannibals mouth as it chews bits of meat, a man is impaled on spikes, there's some blood & a handful of intestines. There's a fair bit of nudity in Sexo Cannibal & an unpleasant rape scene.Sexo Cannibal must have had a low budget & I mean low. This is a shoddy poorly made film with awful special effects & rock bottom production values. The only decent thing about it is the jungle setting which at least looks authentic. The music sucks & sound effects become annoying as there is lots of heavy breathing whenever the cannibal is on screen. The acting sucks, the whole thing was obviously dubbed anyway but no one in this thing can act.Sexo Cannibal is a terrible film that commits the fatal mistake of being as boring as hell. The only good things I can say is that it has a certain sleazy atmosphere to it & those close ups of the cannibal chewing meat are pretty gross. Anyone looking for a decent cinematic experience should give Sexo Cannibal as wide a berth as possible, one to avoid.
| 0
|
train_17935
|
...they bothered making this movie? Anyone? I didn't think so.If you are looking for a coming-of-age movie, go rent Summer of '42. This is no Summer of '42.When your big stars are Nolte & Sarsgaard, & Sarsgaard gets more screen time, that is your first warning sign And, of course, for such an "artsy" movie, there is plenty of cursing & skin flung around, just to make it look "artsy".Sarsgaard did his usual uninteresting, cardboard character, punctuated by moments that were supposed to be intense. The intensity is that of someone with bi-polar disorder.Miller is most famous for her looks & what she had to say about the city of Pittsburgh after this movie. Pittsburgh SHOULD hold a grudge against her. She misrepresented an actual Pittsburgh native.Foster gave Sarsgaard a run for his money in the cardboard acting style. Wow! Was this his first role after high school graduation?So, we have this weird triangle. Foster has a crush on Miller, but is with his boss/girlfriend. He can't take Miller to bed, & won't take his boss to bed. So, he hangs with Sarsgaard & Miller, & watches them get it on.Then, after one of Sarsgaard's pseudo-intense moments, Foster & Miller get it on, a scene that we are "treated" to in every sloppy, moaning detail. Finally, just to round it all out, Foster & Sarsgaard get it on, with Foster in the Miller role. Now I know how 2 guys get it on (as if that was ever anything I needed to know).After all that, all that's left is the tragic ending for one character & the retrospective views of the remaining 2. It gets me right in the pit of my stomach. Oh, wait! That was the pepperoni pizza I just had.I'd like back the time this movie took out of my life, please.
| 0
|
train_21961
|
The Cat in the Hat is just a slap in the face film. Mike Myers as The Cat in the Hat is downright not funny and Mike Myers could not have been any worse. This is his worst film he has ever been in. The acting and the story was just terrible. I mean how could they make the most beloved stories by Dr. Seuss be made into film and being one of the worst films of all-time and such a disappointment. I couldn't have seen a more worst film than this besides, maybe Baby Geniuses. But this film is just so bad I can't even describe how badly they made this film. Bo Welch should be fired or the writer should. Hedeen's outlook: 0/10 No Stars F
| 0
|
train_13659
|
Some movies are repellent but still fascinating (Pulp Fiction); others are simply boring. This movie has an almost unique feature of being both utterly repellent and totally boring. By the end I didn't care about any of the characters, I just wanted all of them dead so I could get out of the theatre.
| 0
|
train_17561
|
Anurag Basu who co-directed the flop KUCCH TO HAI made his debut in this film The film was ahead of it's times in a way though it has a story not to different and it came closest to HAWAS which released 1 week before and luckily this was better and did a better businessThe movie starts off well, Malika's guilt is well shown at the start though the scene with Emraan- Malika is too crude/vulgarThe scenes between Emraan and Malika are well handled and the twist in the tale where Ashmith confronts Emraan is brilliantThe pace moves fast and the viewer is kept on the edge but the second girlfriend track of Emraan isn't fully convincingAlso the cop track seems half bakedThe finale is too filmy tooDirection by Anurag Basu is good Music is a winner, all songs were fab Camera-work was stunningEmraan played his naughty streak very well, this was the role that gave him stardom and though he kept playing such roles and got annoying in this film he was superb Ashmith too was good in his role for once, He did a nice job and one of his only good performance and he looked good too Malika was brilliant in her role esp in the second half but her dial delivery was at times not up to the mark Sadly rarely she showed such potential in other films Raj Jhutsi is okay
| 0
|
train_9153
|
I finally got around to seeing this after hearing great things about it. It actually exceeded my expectations. Considering the budget involved this was a surprisingly competent and well-made film. The lack of finances actually helped this film in several ways, especially given the plot. Just like The Blair Witch Project, this film was all the better for being shot on video instead of film. Another bonus: Whereas most low-budget horror films (even the best of the best) suffer from mediocre-to-unintentionally hysterical acting, this film actually had a talented cast (save one or two characters), particularly the two leads. The only thing missing from the film was an original storyline. It borrows heavily from better-known films like "Deliverance" and "Wrong Turn" but if you're like me, films of this nature never cease to be terrifying. Plus, the director keeps things interesting throughout. I'd be very interested to see what the director would do with a bigger budget and I have a feeling it will only be a matter of time before we find out...
| 1
|
train_14464
|
When I saw this movie cover, the first thing I thought was that it was made for video. The second thing that came to mind was how similar this looked to another terrible movie "Darkness Falls", the tale of this dumb witch who killed people in the dark. Unfortunately, Darkness Falls was quite the masterpiece compared to this pile of garbage, and this movie should not have been made.The film starts off with a small back story for the witch, or, more like a pointless introduction of two little kids who are going to go meet the tooth fairy in hopes of her giving them a shiny new bicycle for their tooth. The opening is filmed poorly, and like the rest of the movie, it's certainly not scary. In present time, the movie is about Peter (Lochlyn Munroe). Peter's renting out his house, and his ex-girlfriend Darcy (Chandra West), and her daughter Cole come to stay there. Cole meets a neighborhood child, and they talk of the Tooth Fairy, and how you shouldn't lose your tooth, or she'll come for you. Unfortunately seconds later, it looks like the Tooth Fairy steals her bike and knocks her tooth out (How ironic). Will Cole survive the wrath of the Tooth Fairy, and will her mother and Peter be able to save her, and rekindle their romance...this is a bad movie, you could probably figure it out.One of the main problems with this idiotic film is how undefined the Tooth Fairy is. They say she kills you if you lose your tooth, but nope. She's more like a serial killer who kills at random, and if you lose your tooth, you're definitely going to go. She steals a bike, so apparently she's a thief too. I said earlier that the idea for this movie was based on Darkness Falls, but where did they get the inspiration for the Tooth Fairy's appearance? Let's see. She looks like a burn victim, and she previously went around the neighborhood slaughtering children. Hmmm...it's almost as though she's an exact rip-off of Freddy Krueger from the "Nightmare on Elm Street" films. And this is not the worst part of this awful mess, the climax is. This movie might have the most laughable climax (Not literally laughable because I found it more sickening than funny) I've ever seen. Don't see this.Just a little trivia. Lochlyn Munroe was in Scary Movie, and Jianna Ballard was in Scary Movie 3, and they both were in this, so apparently Scary Movie stars are forced to end out their career with bad scary movies.My rating: 1/2 out of ****. 80 mins. R for violence.
| 0
|
train_4070
|
I know Anime. I've been into it long before it became a national phenomenon; i loved Ranma before most people knew what Dragonball Z even was. And just so you know I'm not bragging about my, let me say this: out of all the animes I've seen, Castle in the Sky is by far one of the best. It's obvious people say Spirited Away is the best, but I really disagree. Most people only know that movie because it one an Acedmy Award; this isn't an exaggeration - I've shown Princess Mononoke and Castle in the Sky to people who'd only ever seen Spirited Away, and they agree that the latter two are the superior of the three. Personally, I'd never thought that anything could compare to Princess Mononoke, until I finally saw Castle in the Sky. I still think that the prior is the better of the two, but Castle in the Sky is easily on par with it; in many ways, Castle has major elements that Mononoke was missing. In either case, if you've only seen Spirited Away, and think that that is Miyazaki's best film, be prepared to have your earth shaken.
| 1
|
train_6965
|
This movie answers the question, how does a relationship survive when your girlfriend is codependent, clinging, needy, jealous .. and has powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal women?Without spoiling the movie, I can safely assure you it does not, but there's great fun to be had along the way. Uma Thurman is perfect as the mercurial super-heroine, an uber-babe, mysteriously named G-Girl, who unlike most in her sisterhood, is not *always* dedicated to truth, justice, and the American Way. Thurman is also believable as the thoroughly daft, yet somehow still fetching, curator Jenny. When she is dumped for a less endowed but more emotionally secure and well adjusted rival, G-Girl goes ballistic, and what follows is not pretty. It's funny, but it's not pretty ..It's a delightful premise, hell hath no fury like a super-heroine scorned, and those involved don't altogether carry it off, but it has its moments, and I think I'll get the DVD.I liked this movie ..
| 1
|
train_1138
|
When I was a kid of 8, I always watched movies and television that i wasn't supposed to, and this was one of them. It's one of my favorite movies of all time, and it has to be the funniest movie I have ever seen in my life, the acting is excellent, they Don't Make Comedies Like This Anymore these days (movies that are ACTUALLY funny and make you laugh without resorting to excrement or some type of vomit-inducing body fluid as in those retarded Judd Apatow movies starring unfunny non-actors like Seth Rogen, barf).This movie is a classic with actors who can actually act, and deserve all the accolades.
| 1
|
train_14784
|
Now, I won't deny that when I purchased this off eBay, I had high expectations. This was an incredible out-of-print work from the master of comedy that I so enjoy. However, I was soon to be disappointed. Apologies to those who enjoyed it, but I just found the Compleat Al to be very difficult to watch. I got a few smiles, sure, but the majority of the funny came from the music videos (which I've got on DVD) and the rest was basically filler. You could tell that this was not Al's greatest video achievement (that honor goes to UHF). Honestly, I doubt if this will ever make the jump to DVD, so if you're an ultra-hardcore Al fan and just HAVE to own everything, buy the tape off eBay. Just don't pay too much for it.
| 0
|
train_12346
|
This is a very fine and poetic story. Beautiful scenery. Magnificent music score. I've been twice in Japan last year and the movie gave me this typical Japanese feeling. The movement of the camera is superb, as well as the actors. It goes deep into your feelings without becoming melodramatic. Japanese people are very sensitive and kind and it's all very well brought onto the screen here. The director is playing superb with light an colors and shows the audience that it is also possible to let them enjoy a movie with subtle and fine details. Once you've seen this movie you will want to see more from the same director. It's a real feel good movie and I can only recommend it to everybody.
| 1
|
train_8476
|
*** Spoilers*My dad had taped this movie for me when I was 3. By age 5, I had watched it over 400 times. I just watched it and watched it. And I still do today! It has a grim storyline, a lamb's mother is killed by a wolf--a very emotional scene--and wants to become a wolf, like him. After years of training, the lamb is made into a really REALLY evil looking thing. He and the wolf travel to his old barn, but he cannot kill the lambs, no matter how much he wishes to. He ends up killing the wolf, but is no longer seen as a lamb by his former friends, and can't return to his previous way of life.The art is beautiful, the songs are..well, okay, and the voice acting is better than some things today.All in all, you just *have* to see this movie, it is a great masterpiece. Although, it's very hard to find today.
| 1
|
train_2244
|
The only explanation I can muster as to why this film isn't widely distributed is because it hits too close to home for some. This movie was a genuine happy surprise, the satire is genius. This film turns the lights on in the dark that is organized religion and big media, and the roaches scurry for cover. Rent the DVD and watch it for yourself if you haven't yet, this film succeeds where many have failed (Dogma comes to mind) to poke it's nose under the tent, both by using humor and very clever analogies coupled with telling backdrops and locations. Can't comment in depth without revealing some significant spoilers, there are some surprises in this film which even the seasoned film buff will be caught off guard by.
| 1
|
train_21778
|
The fact that I watched this entire movie says something about it...or me. It is not a good movie. Terrible in fact. But terrible in the way that kept my attention in that perverse manner that is akin to watching a tragedy and not being able to look away. It would have made a great MST3K subject!Most of the things that make a terrible movie enjoyable are here: bad dialogue, inappropriate music, contrived plot sequences, ridiculous pseudoscience. You'll thrill to slo-mo death sequences, the poor victims with mouths agape and waaaaaaaay too much time to contemplate their impending doom, facing the outrageously contrived deliverer of their deaths. Your heart will be warmed by old action scene cliches like when two women struggle for a gun and it goes off, but WHO'S SHOT? Both look at themselves, then the other, then themselves, then (seemingly 15 minutes later), one finally goes down. You'll sing along (in latin of course) with the street carolers that turn into a ghastly death's-choir that, for a moment, threatened to turn the movie into a twisted musical.So if you believe like I do that as movies get worse they get better, then this might be a decent choice for you. It's not as funny as my current sci-fi schlock favorite, "They Live" featuring Rowdy Roddy Piper, but it's more fun to watch than luke-warm movies like Omen II or III.I give it 4 out of 10.
| 0
|
train_19286
|
In the questionable comedy vein of Mel Brooks, "Wholly Moses!" tries to take the Bible story of Moses and make fun of it, resulting in the unfunniest Biblical spoof ever filmed.There is no real plot here, just excuses to trot out stalwart comedy talent in underwritten roles. Dudley Moore and Laraine Newman are on a bus tour of the Holy Land, when they stumble across an ancient scroll in a cave. There they read the story of Herschel and Zerelda, also played by Moore and Newman. Herschel's life parallels Moses'. He was sent down the river to be found by the pharaoh's family at the same time Moses was. Herschel's birth father, the late James Coco, becomes Herschel's slave after Herschel is rescued by idol makers and works as a sculptor. Eventually Herschel comes to work for the pharaoh as an astronomer, is banished, and ends up tending Moses' flock of sheep. Herschel and Moses are brothers in law, marrying sisters, and Herschel thinks God has chosen him to free his people in Egypt. Of course, Moses was receiving the Divine Word, but Herschel misunderstood. I'll pause here to laugh hysterically...pause...anyway, the rest of the film is a series of badly written scenes involving Moore and actors who are making "special appearances." These scenes do not propel the plot forward, they bring what little story there is to a grinding halt.Jack Gilford plays a tailor. Dom DeLuise has maybe three lines when he meets Herschel in the desert. John Houseman is an archangel, just giving the same line readings he gave in "The Paper Chase." David L. Lander is a fake blind man "healed" by Herschel. Andrea Martin is one of Zerelda's sisters. I was not sure who Madeline Kahn was supposed to be, she gives a ride to Herschel, and has about a minute and a half of screen time. John Ritter plays a very unfunny devil. Richard Pryor has one scene as the pharaoh, but it was obviously shot at a different time than Moore's scene because the two do not appear onscreen together! In the end, Zerelda turns into a pillar of salt after looking back on New Sodom's destruction, ha ha. Herschel writes the Ten Commandments, and gives them to Moses, who is basking in all the glory. In the final scenes, the screenwriter decide to try and salvage this shallow film by having Herschel bait God into an argument. God comes off as an all powerful bully who was leading Herschel around for his own amusement, speaking through him only to give him the Ten Commandments. We even have Zerelda quip "God works in mysterious ways," thereby excusing everyone's very unChristian behavior during the film.This film is not funny. There is nary a laugh to be found anywhere. At least Monty Python made fun of many established religious mainstays in "Life of Brian" in addition to their questionable take on Jesus' life, but here the humor consists of poo poo jokes and characters constantly bumping their heads. This makes Mel Brooks look like Merchant/Ivory. Churchgoers will be offended, not by the film's attitude toward religion, but by the smugness the movie exhibits, impressed with their own hoitytoityness (I know, not a word) on a subject they obviously know nothing about. "Wholly Moses!" is wholly bad, and an embarassment to all involved. I suggest you read the Book instead.This is rated (PG) for some physical violence, profanity, sexual references, and adult situations.
| 0
|
train_2908
|
A journey of discovery, this film follows the lives of one family living in a sleepy, island town in British Columbia. Languorous and dreamy, the inhabitants are satisfied to allow life to go on around them until a young, fresh-faced teacher, with new ideas arrives and brings with her life from the mainland. Slowly, their indolent state is awakened, the father (and principal of the local school) looks for excitement, the mother for stability, the oldest daughter for love, and the youngest for power. While not an incredible or ground-breaking piece of cinema, the movie is quietly enjoyable and good for a tired night when the wind is blowing. Unfortunately, I doubt anyone outside of Canada will find it easily accessible.
| 1
|
train_19965
|
I could only get through about 25 mins of it. Not one laugh in the 25 minutes I gave it, one of the most painful films I've ever had to endure. Chris Kattan is so nervous on screen that it made me nervous to watch him. Just a horrible movie.
| 0
|
train_6635
|
What can i say about the first film ever?You can't rate this, because it's not supposed to be entertaining. But if you HAVE to rate it, you should give it a 10. It is stunning to see moving images from the year 1895. This was one of the most important movies in history. I wonder how it was to be one of the people who saw the first movie ever!
| 1
|
train_12881
|
This movie is traditional bollywood fare as far as the star power, sentimentality and love triangle of emotions. What really bothered me about this movie was the makers' absurd notion of surrogate mother. A whore who conceives a child with someone after have sex with the man (of the family desiring a child) is not a surrogate mother. Neither is she a good candidate for a surrogate mother. I have seen Indian movies and television shows that made 10 to 15 years ago that dealt with this issue more intelligently. The whole concept of the movie is ridiculous and absolutely implausible. I realize that most bollywood movies aren't meant to be plausible, but they don't pretend to be either. This movie wants us to emote along with the characters, but this can't done with such a ridiculous, contrived conflict. I would have expected better from Abbas and Mustan.
| 0
|
train_24601
|
I saw it, I agree with him 100%, but I didn't care for his delivery. He just came off as an asshole in a poorly edited, contrived juvenile smear campaign. Edit cuts galore, etc... The camera would be focused on him, and you'd see 2 or 3 edit cuts just over the course of a minute or two of dialog. Add in the constant boom mikes in the camera shot, which is a film no-no.This documentary hits a topic with so many angles, so many interesting stories, that the movie is just so easily done. Picking on religious fanatics is like picking on the retarded kid. It is so easy it is just wrong. I mean how hard is it to make these people look like nut bags? To make them contradict themselves, you just let them recite more then a verse or two. I do like when he jumped back in forth between people of the same religion and showed them completely contradicting themselves.I just think he could have done something a little more creative. The part with the neurologist talking about brain activity was never fleshed out. It could have been interesting to show brain scans of people during religious fits compared to drugs, or sex, or ???? He could have played more on the women all rejoicing over the Passion play that looked more like a snuff scene in a new Rob Zombie movie. More could have gone into the history of John Smith, the Mormon founder who had quite the colorful past. Delve into science v.s. religion. One is a very methodical, very strict process for increasing the confidence in theories. It builds on itself from a solid bottom up, a new layer on top of a more proved layer. An enormous burden of proof is required each step of the way. The other starts at the top and comes down with unchallengeable claims. It is so, because well
I said so.Done right
I'd say turn it into an HBO original series
hit a different religion every week.It was an eye opener about one thing. I must have been blind. Good ole G.W.Bush... no wonder he got elected. He had the religious majority. And well... now that is the blind leading the blind.Bill Moyer.. Well.. what can I expect from a guy who hands out at Sutra in Newport beach?
| 0
|
train_14233
|
SAPS AT SEA Aspect ratio: 1.37:1Sound format: Mono(Black and white)Suffering from 'hornophobia', Ollie embarks on a 'restful' boat trip, but he and Stan get mixed up with an escaped convict (Rychard Cramer). Chaos ensues.This feature length comedy - an OK entry which nonetheless unspools like a mere imitation of Laurel and Hardy's best work - marked the final collaboration between L&H and producer Hal Roach. Episodic in structure, the movie culminates in a memorable ocean voyage after The Boys are taken hostage by villainous Cramer (who shoots a seagull to prove how tough he is!). The gags are OK, but inspiration is lacking, perhaps due to the recruitment of actor-turned-director Gordon Douglas, previously responsible for Ollie's first solo effort in the sound era (ZENOBIA, produced in 1939), but whose work here lacks a measure of pzazz. Fair, but nothing special. L&H regulars Charlie Hall and James Finlayson make guest appearances.
| 0
|
train_736
|
A must for any punk rocker, this is the movie that made The Ramones a household name back in the early 1980's (when it first appeared on premium cable stations). This was one of the first and best of the American Punk Rock movies, with a cult classic status up there with The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Originally the producers wanted Cheap Trick as the stars, but the release of the "Live At Budakon" album had just made them superstars and too hot an item to be in a low budget movie. Very good luck for the Ramones who were looking to break out of the underground punk rock world and into the mainstream market (which sadly never happened until after the bands demise). The band, Dee Dee especially, always disliked the movie through the 80's but the fans always loved and could recite most of the movie while waiting to get into Ramones shows. This movie, like most classics, is stupid fun with some classic Ramones footage in their heyday. Don't expect more, you won't find it. It's great fun, so enjoy it. Another Allan Arkush classic movie in a similar vein is Get Crazy, featuring Lee Ving from the legendary hardcore punk band Fear.
| 1
|
train_19663
|
Upon concluding my viewing of "Trance," or "The Eternal," or whatever the producers are calling this film, I wondered to myself, "Out of all of the bad movies I could have seen, couldn't I have at least seen one that was entertaining?" Even if a film is not well made in terms of acting, directing, writing, or what have you, it can at least be fun, and therefore worthwhile. But not only is this film bad in artistic value, it's incredibly boring. For a plot of such thinness, it moves awfully slowly, with little dramatic tension. At the very least, in a low-brow attempt at entertainment, the deaths of the characters could have been cool and/or gory, but the creators of this dreck failed in that department as well.What does this movie have going for it? Pretty much nothing, unless you get entertainment out of watching Christopher Walken, who is capable of being brilliant, put so little effort into his acting that he falls into self-parody mode (WHY did he decide to do this film anyway?).I give this film 3/10, because, God help us, there actually have been worse movies made before.
| 0
|
train_14337
|
I admit to liking a lot of the so-called "frat-pack" movies. No matter how bad they are, I can find something to like about Ben Stiller or Owen Wilson or Vince Vaughn or Will Ferrell or Jack Black. But "Envy" just left me about as cold as the white horse that Ben disposed of. This time, it's Ben and Jack Black as a couple of nutty neighbors, one of whom (Black) discovers a aerosol spray to make animal poop disappear and becomes incredibly wealthy while the other (Stiller) writhes in envy. That's supposedly the plot, but then it veers off in other directions that don't really make much sense.I guess the 'Vapoorize' thing is sort of amusing at first. The problem is, they try to sustain the gag for the whole picture (Black has a license plate that reads 'Caca King') and it gets fairly tiresome. But even Ben and Jack are used poorly; the energy level for both of their performances seems significantly dialed down. The two best performances by far are Rachel Weisz and Chris Walken. Walken's neo-hippie-dippie guy is so offbeat and so well-modulated a performance that it really never suggests any of Walken's other familiar nutcase characters. It's completely unique, yet comes across as unmistakably Walken. And Weisz is about the best actress in the business that nobody knows about. Even with limited screen time, she still dominates every scene she's in.The whole crux of the so-called drama is that Ben, in a jealous drunken stupor, accidentally shoots Jack's prize white stallion, and then goes to ridiculous lengths to cover it up, fearing his best friend will find out and cut him dead. But the plot twist isn't believable because there's nothing about Jack's character to indicate that he would do such a thing. He plays such a sweet guy that it renders the whole excruciating horse chase null and void. You discount it completely. It's all filler. And what's the point of the out-of-control merry-go-round, except that Barry Levinson wants us to know that he's seen "Strangers on a Train"? The screenplay is painfully bad and the acting of the two leads poorly directed. Someone with Levinson's track record should know better. Maybe someone will invent something to make this film disappear. Oh, wait, they already have.
| 0
|
train_16548
|
Possibly not, but it is awful. Even the fantastic cast cant save it. OK, I admit it started off quite funny but it seemed to plummet downhill as soon as they jumped those girls in the Generals house. Bill Murray turned from being a quick witted, humorous guy into an arsehole who was shouting things at people in the street that just weren't funny, its like he was trying too hard to be funny. His character stole a weapon (an RV? come on...) and ends up being a national hero after invading another country and killing god knows how many soldiers, for a laugh. One good point is that this film shows the inadequacy and incompetence of the US Army and shows how arrogant and imbecilic they really are, albeit unintentionally. I actually felt disgusted that this kind of propaganda crap could really be released.
| 0
|
train_3779
|
I got the first Bill and Ted movie for christmas and I had to get the second when I saw it in a store. This one was (I think) just as funny as the first but a much wierder story. It was funny how they had their own personnal hell and how they had to play death. The funny thing was that they played him in stupid little games like clue. The only thing I'd change is Station and Death being in the band but other than that it was great.
| 1
|
train_14807
|
I was true to my regard for Mr. Glover and Ms. Goldberg. I watched the entire film with my family and some friends. I have no idea what the movie was about. After much discussion, we all agreed that this was not one of their better efforts.It doesn't hang together very well. It is too choppy, and there is little comedy. I am disappointed. It could have been much better.I waited months to see this film based on the liner notes.Don't waste your money unless you are a completist and just want to see all of Mr. Glover's and Ms. Goldberg's films.It was a poor way to spend an evening.
| 0
|
train_23017
|
From the start this film was awful! Why was it that bad?? If it isn't the naked women, not only in need of a decent plastic surgeon but also the expertise of a dentist followed by a free hand out of Colgate whitening!! Then it's the 'crazy' old guy at the gas station, who isn't so much crazy, but more "I'm not sure how to act a great deal so I will stare straight ahead and look as stupid as I can while pretending to shout in robotic tones about something in the woods"!! Then back to these naked nymphs in need of a cure for gingivitis.... apparently, without touching you...and this is according to the opening scene.... they can cause a nasty looking red rash on your neck, which I assumed to be a chunk of flesh missing but just looks as though it could do with some TCP to clear it right up. Then you have Sophie Holland who plays Ally, I have never seen such baaaaaad acting, she is more of a "me me me, if I'm not having fun no-one else is, and I don't wanna do this so I won't, and I'm the meanest cow on the planet, I'm sarcastic, petty and if I don't get things my way I will sulk!", kind of person.... reminds me more of a 6 yr old girl's attitude. I don't think it's even worth mentioning the dire camera angles that remind me of Blair Witch, or how low-budget the film actually was that when Judd was hacking at the 'locked' door it was in fact open before he reached to unlock it from the other side!! This film is completely laughable! If it were a spoof then it would have been successful...only just though, but, as a horror film is was just plain wrong!!! I can't even being to describe everything that went t!ts up in this movie I would run out of room! Although it was funny to watch Andrew drip raspberry juice in his ear every time he opened his mouth while Tom Savini's character was completely blind to the two hiding under the table directly in his line of vision!! It was even funnier when these two thought they could escape on a god damn tractor, which as we all know is thee number one hated vehicle to get stuck behind since its so god damn slow! So is it any wonder they don't get away with it?? And how many people do you know that can slice open their wrist and then run around for hours as if nothing ever happened! No pain, no weakening from blood loss, nothing!? But the silliest part is when all of a sudden (and i mean that literally) it's one YEAR later and Molly is still wandering the woods after having escaped the nymphs, and then lo and behold, Shaun Hutson picks her up...of course not without a line to promote his books!! (altho admittedly he is one of my fav authors) but suddenly, and with absolutely no hint of an xplanation as to how and why... she's evil herself and lures Hutson to his death, then we cut to the crazy dude from the beginning suddenly wandering round the woods with a petrol can, even after his 'dazzling' performance on why no-one should ever venture there for whatever reason...cue the nymphs stupidly slappin each other around a bit for fun while Crazy pours petrol everywhere....and here endeth the film....finally! My conclusion....if you hadn't already guessed by now....absolute rubbish! There was no proper thought went into it at all, whoever was aiming the camera needed firing...and come to think of it so did 99% of the cast! If the right director, actors, and budget got behind this it could have been decent. But, once again, low-budget English horror films but the rest of the genre, the country, and the English film-making industry to shame!! (And I'm English so I'm allowed to say that)! In fact the only decent and exciting part of the movie is in the first 15-20 mins when we watch it turn from night to day over a field type area. All I kept thinking throughout this was "Jesus Christ in heaven why oh why did you allow someone to make this, its absolute cow's testicles!!" But I can't turn a film off after I've started watching it unfortunately. I had to watch From Dusk Til Dawn afterwards just to remind myself that Tom Savini does have it in him to act well! If there was an option for 0/10 then believe me I woulda chose that, cuz this film isn't even worth the one point I did give it! But this is just my opinion, watch it and decide for yourself.
| 0
|
train_14151
|
A poorly written script with no likeable characters. As for it being a comedy, I forgot to laugh. It's about 2 conceited friends who scam to get women in too bed with them (no sex scenes) and another friend(who is semi-discustingly weird)who sometimes also scams but mainly is considered as being the guy who masterbates. The 3 friends separately meet and fall for the same woman (Amanda Peet). Somehow this is done without really any romance. The 3 guys stop being friends as they separately dated her. She scammed them out of their friendship because they scammed women. -- A bad movie
| 0
|
train_7033
|
First of all, DO NOT call this a remake of the '63 film. Even though this version is truer to the stage play, it is Extremely long. The casting was good with some exceptions. Chyna Phillips was not a good casting choice. She was almost 30 when she did this film, and it was hard to believe she was a teenager. Jason Alexander was good choice, but after a while he gave me a headache. Tyne Daly overdoes her part as Mae Peterson. George Wendt was funny as Harry McAffee, and showed he could even hold a tune. Like the '63 film, they casted an unknown to play Conrad Birdie. Marc Kudisch had fun with his role as Birdie and it showed. I even have the soundtrack and i love listening to his singing. So what made this a TV ratings flop? It was lengthy for one. They put in new songs and scenes. Even though some of the new songs were good (like "Let's Settle Down"), was it really necessary? Now don't get me wrong, I liked it, but I rather watch the '63 film (see my review). This was just a case of some actors overdoing roles, making some changes, and once again, LENGTH. One more thing I forgot to mention is Vanessa Williams. She does a good job with the role and the music. Give her any lyrics and she could sing them. So here is my advice coming from someone who's done a couple productions of Bye Bye Birdie: If you want to watch an entertaining take on the play, watch the '63 film. If you want to watch a version that is truer to the play, watch the '95 version. Just take it in moderation though. Don't be a hero and try watch it all in one sitting.
| 1
|
train_18297
|
I was at first disgusted with director Sun-Woo Jang because I had felt that he cheated me. Jang had the potential to create a strong, deeply emotional film about sex and its effects on people, but instead chose to focus his strength on the pornography element more than the actual human element. I couldn't see the characters at first and his sloppy introduction which blended both realism and cinema together was amateurish at best
yet this film remained in my mind for days after I viewed it. What stayed with me wasn't the story, it wasn't the characters, nor was it the apparent pornographic nature of the film, but the transition that Jang demonstrated between Y and J. If you watch this film carefully, you will see that both begin in an exploration phase of their relationship, eager to jump into the unknown, but not quite certain the next step. As they continue to meet, exploring new avenues of pleasure, they continually jump between the aggressor and the aggressed. Jang initially explores the idea that J is the one that in control of the situation, then hauntingly, the reversal happens when J becomes obsessed with Y. It is a very small change, and due to the graphic content of this film, it can easily be missed, but it is there. It becomes apparently clear near the end when J cannot live with Y, as their meetings become less frequent, and J attempts to become a part of normal society. This was a huge and very exciting element to this film to see right before your eyes, but alas, it was the only element of this film worth viewing.I will ignore those that speak of this film as nothing more than pornographic, because there are human elements at the core of this film, as underdeveloped as they are, they are there. It is a film about a facet of our lives that is very rarely explored in cinema or talked about in the papers. What happens behind closed doors is never known
or so we should believe. While the act itself does becomes repetitive after a bit, director Jang tries to change it up a bit with some constantly changing scenery. Our characters are continually moving from hotel room to hotel room to best quench their thirst for each other's flesh. This is fun at first, but again, Jang's repetitive streak seems to make it feel boring than exciting. This leads me to the biggest issue that I had with this film. Jang had a great story with Gojitmal, but where he failed (outside of the obvious choice to focus directly on the pornographic side) was that he took scenes, repeated them time and again, without changing in front of us to allow us to get to know the characters. Where was Jang going with this movie? Did he want the sex to tell the stories, or did he believe the characters would? He failed in this sense because by the end of the film we know so little about Y and J that we could care less how they resolve themselves. The ending seems almost random at best as Jang attempts to create a final resolution for our two, absolute unknowns, of this film. I have to give Jang some credit for trying, but not much. He attempted to create some sub-stories that would create the personal element that we were lacking, but they just couldn't congeal well together. Y's brother and J's wife were those plot points, but again, due to him focusing so strongly on the sexual element, these stronger sub-stories became un-rememberable and down-right dull. Maybe it was just how I viewed this film, but outside of the sexual scenes, nothing else worked together. We knew nothing about J and Y and that is why Gojitmal failed.Finally, I would like to say that this film could have benefited from having a strong score or a daftly remote music genre element to it to bring us, the viewers, closer to the emotions being felt by J and Y. From what I can remember, and I am trying to push this film far from my mind, I don't remember any musical undertones. Gojitmal may have been a stronger film if Jang either stylized it with music or done something to allude towards our character's beings. While I understand that he wanted the sex to speak for itself, there was just a technical element missing from this film that may have quenched a stronger desire for more. Technically, this was a poor film. Obviously an independent film in nature, it felt more like director Jang was trying to make symbolic references out of nothing instead of your typical independent of this nature. I didn't see as much of a social message or human element like mentioned above, I just felt like he threw this film together over the course of two weeks and understood that the sex would sell it enough. This was no Larry Clark production; this was sub-par and definitely needed some further technical clicks to develop it stronger than the final release! Overall, I think I could have liked this film and there were smaller elements that I did enjoy, but I felt this film was rushed, repetitive, and played too much towards the taboos instead of breaking them. The obvious pitfalls of this film can be seen by the last scene of this film when we are privy to how the title of this film was conceived. Our characters were uneventful, our story was underdeveloped, and we could have used something memorable to make what was happening between Y and J into something more symbolic than sex. To me, Jang was trying too much to capture art house meets pornographic
and it failed miserably. This was not a film worth the time and effort that it took to make.Grade: ** out of *****
| 0
|
train_10624
|
I thought I should qualify my position after reading other reviews. The movie is not great, but it has a lot of great elements. The lighting and scenes along with the camera work are great. The story is slow and weak, but entertaining. The acting is bad, but no worse than you will find on the SyFy Channel. The music is pretty good and the gore is good. It has the great Leather Face in the film and is produced by Bruce Campbell. I watched the complete movie and while mostly predictable, it was still enjoyable. The women are attractive enough and the lead actor does a good job of being brooding and creepy. The movie was remarkably clean for a modern film and the violence appropriate for children 13 and up. There was no sex scenes. I gave it 7 out of 10 and I think that is fair. I would watch it again if I had nothing better to do. The gay sounding angel was the most annoying aspect of the film, the devil is quite creepy.
| 1
|
train_9399
|
This is a film I saw when it first came out, and which I have seen a few more times over the years. It's always enjoyable.One thing is that the comedy does not take sides: it skewers labor and capitalists equally. Only Sid seems outside the classic struggle, even though he's responsible for it. Spoiler warning: do not read further if you haven't seen the film This is a fantasy, though presented fairly plausibly. Ask yourself: could someone support most of his or her weight in a single strand of fabric? It would cut through almost any support.Also, when cornered in an alley, Sid uses a garbage can cover like a knight's shield. Cute symbolism.Someday, I'll get this on DVD.
| 1
|
train_16180
|
I remember a certain Tuesday, the morning of 18/6/02 to be exact. I was dozed off, trying to convince myself to get out of bed when a horrific explosion was heard. I went to the kitchen where I have a view of several neighborhoods in the southern Jerusalem and saw a pillar of smoke rising from a distant point, the sight of the smoke was followed a minute later by the waling of sirens. I remember rushing to my bedroom, taking out my binoculars, racing back to the kitchen and spotting the image of a glass shattered bus. The bus was still near the pick up station where a terrorist boarded on it and with a single click on a TNT device, murdered 25 passengers, many of whom were on their way to school. The wife of a good friend of mine, sat on the bus at the back row, a seemingly arbitrary and meaningless decision that saved her life.I'm sure that every Israeli has at least one terror-related memory he wishes he never would have had and it was only a matter of time before someone made a film about it. As it turned out, the movie was about to become a repressed memory of its own.The film is about a play-write on a dry run, Haim Buzaglo (portrayed by, hmmm, Haim Buzaglo who also wrote and directed the film) that spends the better part of his day conducting staring contests with his blank word processor page. In the meantime, his girlfriend, a field reporter for the Israeli commercial channel, decides to make a piece about a debt ridden ex-army officer. Buzaglo, bored and a bit paranoid due what is medically known as the "what on earth this hot babe is dating me" syndrome, asks a private eye to conduct a stakeout on his girlfriend.As the detective progresses in his investigation, his observations are permeating into the play and later on, to the lives of its actors. In the meantime, the play metamorphoses from a comic play into an indictment against the aloofness of the Israeli society. As for the movie, well, the movie becomes an exercise in frenzy editing, ensconced in its petty cardboard characters and unreliable dialogs while drifting miles away from the subject it was supposed to deal with in the first place.When I say "cardboard characters" I refer to the characters that under the writer/director's obsession for a "meaningful" film, were devoid of any genuine dialogs and any shred of reliability. I won't elaborate too much about it. Suffice to say that I'm sure that homeless barefoot male prostitutes rarely go the theater. With the intention to see a play, that is.This movie, according to Haim Buzaglo himself is the first part of a current agenda trilogy. I sincerely hope that the other two films will be derived from the experiences like the one I wrote about in the beginning of my review as opposed to the secluded world of characters that are anything but existent and a plot that is anything but compelling.4 out of 10 in my FilmOmeter.P.S. This movie was a landmark in austerity. It was shot in ten days, all the cast worked for free and the entire cost of the film was about 12,000$ (no, I didn't omit a zero or two, twelve thousand dollars). Makes you wonder why it took 34,000$ to complete Blair witch project.
| 0
|
train_11646
|
This movie, even though is about one of the most favorite topics of Mexican producers producers: the extreme life in our cities, has a funny way to put it on the screen. Four of the more important Mexican directors, of the last times, approach histories of our city framed in diverse literary sorts as it can be the farce or the satire, which gives us a film with a over exposed topic in our country, but narrated in a very different way which gives a freshness tone him. With actors little known, but that interprets of excellent way their paper, each one of the directors reflect in the stories the capacity by we have been identified anywhere in the world, that capacity of laugh the pains and to make celebration of the sadness. Perhaps to many people in our country the film not have pleased, but I consider that people of other countries could find attractive and share the surrealism of the Mexican.
| 1
|
train_15986
|
I get the feeling that those involved in making "Surviving Christmas" didn't put much thought into the movie. The characters are so inconsistent and the plot makes so little sense that the movie played like a rough draft of a script thrown together with little but the one-liner concept of a rich guy paying a family to let him spend Christmas with them.Ben Affleck portrays Drew Latham, the typical Hollywood image of a wealthy, egotistical advertising executive who buys his way through life. His girlfriend, Missy, leaves him shortly before Christmas because she's disgusted that Drew wanted to take her to Fiji for Christmas, which she calls "the family holiday," and the fact that Drew has never introduced her to his family. We later find out that Drew's father left when he was 4 years old, and his mother is dead, so it's a mystery why he doesn't just say that he has no family, rather than allow his girlfriend to believe that he doesn't care about his family.Out of fear of being alone on Christmas, Drew tracks down Missy's shrink (why? I have no idea), who suggests he do a forgiveness ritual at his childhood home. When he meets the family living in his childhood home, the Valcos, Drew offers them $250,000 to pretend to be his family, so he can relive his fond childhood memories. He gets angry when he later finds out that they have an adult daughter, Alicia (Christina Applegate), because he "doesn't have a sister," and even goes so far as to write a script for the family to follow so that they act more like his "real" family. None of this makes any sense once Drew reveals that he grew up with no family but his mother.Also inexplicable is the character of Alicia, who is annoyed that her family accepted Drew's money, and refuses to play along with his fantasy. But for no good reason, she suddenly starts to like Drew, and in a matter of minutes goes from hating his guts to acting like his girlfriend. Drew is such a complete jerk throughout the movie that even his sad story about the lonely Christmases of his childhood evokes no sympathy; I almost wish he had finished with, "Just kidding! The real reason I don't see my family is that they all have restraining orders against me!" (2/10)
| 0
|
train_15052
|
This is listed as a documentary, it's not, it's filmed sort of like a documentary but that I suspect was just because then they get away with a shaky camera and dodgy filming. This has just been released in the UK on DVD as an "American Pie style comedy" it's not that either.Basically it follows around a group of teens on spring break as they go to Mexico for cheap booze and with the quest being to get there virgin friend finally laid. Throw is a couple of dwarfs, also on the same sort of quest and you have a non-hilarious tale of drunk teens trying to get some girls.Considering the 18 Rating this has very little nudity, and practically zero sex scenes, mainly I guess the rating is for swearing of which there is plenty.If you like crude Jackass behaviour without the humour, then this may be your thing, if you have any brain cells left then I would probably avoid this!
| 0
|
train_17785
|
Somewhere, on this site, someone wrote that to get the best version of the works of Jane Austen, one should simply read them. I agree with that. However, we love adaptations of great literature and the current writers' strike brings to mind that without good writers, it's hard for actors to bring their roles to life. The current version of Jane Austen's PERSUASION shows us what happens when you don't have a good foundation in a well-written adaptation. This version does not compare to the 1995 version with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds, which was well acted and kept the essence of the era and the constraints on the characters (with the exception of the bizarre parade & kissing in the street scene in Bath). The 2007 version shows a twitty Anne who seems angst-ridden. The other characters were not very developed which is a crime, considering how Austen could paint such wonderful characters with some carefully chosen understatements. The sequence of events that made sense in the novel were completely tossed about, and Mrs. Smith, Anne's bedridden and impoverished schoolmate is walking around in Bath - - twittering away, as many of the characters seemed to do. The strength of character and the intelligence of Captain Wentworth, which caused Anne to love him in the first place, didn't seem to be written into the Rupert Penry-Jones' Wentworth. Ciaran Hinds had more substance and was able to convey so much more with a look, than P-J was able to do with his poses. All in all, the 2007 version was a disappointment. It seemed to reduce the novel into a hand- wringing, costumed melodrama of debatable worth. If they wanted to bring our modern emotional extravagances into Austen's work, they should have done what they do with adaptations of Shakespeare: adapt it to the present. At least "Bride & Prejudice" was taken out of the historical & locational settings and was fun to watch, as was "Clueless". This wasn't PERSUASION, but they didn't know what else to call it.
| 0
|
train_13360
|
Kubrick meets King. It sounded so promising back in the spring of 1980, I remember. Then the movie came out, and the Kubrick cultists have been bickering with the King cultists ever since.The King cultists say Stanley Kubrick took a great horror tale and ruined it. The Kubrick cultists don't give a damn about King's story. They talk about Steadicams, tracking shots, camera angles.This is a film, they insist: It should be considered on its own. As it happens, both camps are correct. Unfortunately.If one views it purely as an adaptation of King's novel, "The Shining" is indeed a failure, a wasted opportunity, a series of botched narrative gambits. I used to blame that on Kubrick's screenwriter. The writer Diane Johnson (author of Le Marriage, L'Affaire, Le Divorce, etc.) has a reputation as an novelist of social manners. Maybe she was chosen for her subtle grasp of conjugal relations or family dynamics. But the little blue-collar town of Sidewinder, Colorado doesn't exist on any map in her Francophile universe. Kubrick the Anglophile probably found her congenial, however. He, of course, is the real auteur. And considered on its own merits, his screenplay for "The Shining" -- with its mishmash of abnormal psychology, rationalism, supernaturalism, and implied reincarnation -- just doesn't stand up to logical analysis.I'm willing to consider Kubrick's "Shining" on its own terms. I'm even willing to take it as something other than a conventional horror-genre movie. But it doesn't succeed as a naturalistic study of isolation, alienation, and madness either. Parsed either way, the film pretty much falls apart.Are the horrors of the Overlook Hotel real? Or do they exist only in the mind -- first as prescient nightmares suffered by little Danny Torrance, then as the hallucinations of his father? One notes how whenever Jack Torrance is seen talking to a "ghost" he is in fact looking into a mirror. One notes how the hotel's frozen topiary-hedge maze appears to symbolize Jack's stunted, convoluted psyche. Very deep stuff.But if indeed the Overlook's "ghosts" are purely manifestations of Jack Torrance's growing insanity, then who exactly lets the trapped Jack out of the hotel kitchen's dead-bolted walk- in closet, so that he can go on his climactic ax-wielding rampage?And can ANYONE explain, with a straight face, that black-and-white photograph (helpfully labelled "1921") of Nicholson as a tuxedoed party-goer that pops up out of left field and onto a hotel-ballroom wall during the film's closing seconds? Are we to seriously conclude that Jack Torrance's Bad Craziness stems from a some sort of "past life" experience? (And if you swallow that, since when are reincarnated people supposed to be exact physical replicas their past selves?)Maybe Kubrick didn't care about his storyline. Maybe only wanted to evoke a mood of horror. Whatever the case, the film tries to hedge its narrative bets -- to have it both ways, rational and supernatural. As a result, the story is a mess. This movie hasn't improved with age, and it certainly doesn't improve with repeated viewings.I don't deny that a few moments of fear, claustrophobia, and general creepiness are scattered throughout this long, long film. But those gushing Elevators o' Blood, seen repeatedly in little Danny's visions, are absurd and laughable. And Jack Torrance's infamous tag lines ("Wendy, I'm home!" and "Heeeeeere's JOHNNY!") merely puncture the movie's dramatic tension and dissipate its narrative energy. (I know: I sat in the theater and heard the audience laugh in comic relief: "Whew! Glad we don't have to take this stuff seriously!") Finally, Kubrick is completely at sea -- or else utterly cynical -- during those scenes in which Wendy wanders around the empty hotel while her husband tries to puree their son. A foyer full of mummified guests, all sitting there dead in their party hats? Yikes, now I really am afraid.Given Jack Nicholson's brilliance over the years, one can only assume that he gave just the sort of eyeball-rolling, eyebrow-wiggling, scenery-chomping performance that the director wanted. The performance of Shelley Duvall, as a sort of female version of Don Knotts in "The Ghost and Mr. Chicken," is best passed over in silence.This movie simply doesn't succeed -- not as an adaptation, not on its own terms. It probably merits a 3 out of 10, but I'm giving it a 1 because it has been so GROTESQUELY over-rated in this forum.
| 0
|
train_5412
|
As a Pokémon fan I enjoyed this movie very much. It introduces new legendary Pokémon (as each movie does) and adds depth to the relationships between its characters. I however do not expect those who are not Pokémon fans to enjoy it(This includes MOST adults). Some of the lines were corny, but that can be somewhat unavoidable when dubbing the movie over to English. The animation was beautiful, although there were a couple parts that did not look good. And although the villain is kind of corny, I think that the movies have done a good job of cycling through different types of villains, and I guarantee you that they aren't all like this one. Those who did not like it, I say to each his own, but Pokémon fans will love it.
| 1
|
train_713
|
this movie is awesome. sort of. it dosent really say much, or do much, but it is an awesome movie to watch because of how stupid it is. the high school is taken over by evil ms.togar that hates the one thing that all the students love, rock& roll. riff randle get everyone tickets for the ramones show, and this movie peaks with a take over of the school led my riff randle & the ramones. this movie has everything, a bad script, questionable directing, bad actors(ie clint howard & p.j. soles), an awesome soundtrack,extreme campyness, these elements & much more come together to make this what it is,a classic.note - during the live ramones set, notice that darby crash of the germs is in the front of the crowd. neat-o.
| 1
|
train_6509
|
I just can't believe some of the comments on this show! The show is just genius! Sure it doesn't follow the tried and true, but do we as consumers always want the same things thrust at us over and over again. Shouldn't we have the option to sit back and enjoy something new once in a while. The style is not as realistic as previous "Scooby Doo" shows, but it's not supposed to be. The show it titled "Shaggy and Scooby Doo Get a Clue" what part of that title states that the entire beloved cast of other renditions would constantly join in the action. And nowhere does it say that they'd be solving mysteries, and they can't even stand monsters, so why would they? I'm actually glad that they put some long standing plot points that work into a Scooby-Doo show. They still have running jokes, clumsy hi-jinks, quick-change outfits in chase scenes, the standard hallway gag and even Scooby snacks. In fact I'm glad that this show is out there, because I just love it. I'm even glad they got rid of the rest of the team for a while and concentrated on just two main characters and a villain.Sure it's ridiculous, it's supposed to be! Sure it's different, it's supposed to be. It's supposed to make you laugh at the villain, and cheer for the idiotic robotic butler to triumph over all intruding vermin, no matter what the size. You're supposed to get the running "Roobi-Roo" joke. The whole thing is just put together so well, there isn't a single thing I can think that is WRONG with it. The writing, the acting, the animation, all top notch. The title music is awesome (my computer plays "GET A CLUE!" when it boots up), and the background music is just gripping.
| 1
|
train_12197
|
This could be well have been THE definitive film noir of all time, had not the Columbia Studios cut so much of Orson Welles's original. What we are left with is a flawed, yet brilliant film that showcases the overwhelming talent of Welles as an actor/director and Rita Hayworth as a serious dramatic talent.'The Lady From Shanghai' is film noir at it's most sizzling and confusing. Welles, with an uneven accent, portrays Michael O'Hara, a journeyman Irishman, who, after a fateful encounter with the seductive, dangerous Elsa Bannister (Hayworth, in a GREAT performance)finds himself virtually coerced into accepting a job as a crewman on her and her crippled husband's (Everett Sloane) yacht. Elsa, or 'Rosalie' as Michael likes to call her, plays the innocent, helpless doll very well, ensnaring O'Hara in her web. As the lovers conduct a not-so-secret affair at sea, Arthur Bannister's partner in his law firm, George Grisby (Glenn Anders)comes aboard. He is a weird, untrustworthy figure who offers Michael a unique proposal: He will get $5000 to assist Grisby in the faking of Grisby's death, so it looks murder. The plan is for Michael to get off a technicality, and run off into the sun with Elsa. But things do not go to plan.Hayworth delivers us one of the best femme fatales of all time in a very ambiguous portrayal. At times she seems genuinely vulnerable and child-like, at others brutal, world-weary and hard. Always she is brilliantly beautiful, whether he situation calls for her to be dripping wet in a swimsuit or dressed in black, brandishing a gun. Hayworth is beautifully photographed here, and she is a far-cry from her famous 'Gilda' role. Her then-husband Orson Welles cut off her trademark auburn locks for a dyed blonde crop (angering Columbia boss Harry Cohn). It was a terrific marketing ploy, and he change suits her changed attitude wonderfully. She is not the sympathetic femme fatale that 'Gilda' is, here- instead she is a predatory, black-hearted dame who sees murder as a very useful option.The Welles and Hayworth pairing came at a time when the couple were having extreme difficulties in their marriage. They would divorce after the film was made, so this is also a curiosity for providing some view into the complicated relationship. They are hateful, not romantic, lovers in this, so it's hard to gauge whether or not they had real chemistry on screen. Certainly every encounter is potent and filled with raw sexuality, with Welles as the 'fall guy' (he even admits it himself in the film!) and Rita as the double-crossing babe.Welles character is the typical noir 'drifter' with not much sense. As Welles voice-over proves to use, O'Hara indeed does not use his brain very much 'expect to be thinking of her (Elsa)'. Welles usually played intelligent, charismatic fellows, so his turn here as the dim-witted Michael is unusual and very interesting. Indeed, Welles was an actor of fine talent and he pulls off it well.Everett Sloane is suitably slimy as Hayworth's crippled husband. One wonders why he hires Michael. It is obvious that his wife is interested in him romantically, so why does he invite a 'threat' on board? One interpretation could be that Michael provides the 'service' to his wife that Bannister cannot in his crippled state. There is definitely something to that theory, with a lot of implications toward Elsa's behaviour before she met her husband (was she some sort of prostitute?)and Grisby's knowledge of Bannister's most intimate secrets being hinted at in several scenes.This is a jumbled, convoluted film with a plot that is ultimately flawed. We are more interested in the love triangle than the murder plot, as with most noirs. Welles provides us with many of his usual brilliant cinematic touches, including the justifiably famous 'hall of mirrors' climax. It's a terrific scene, one ending that can almost obliterate the faults earlier on in the movie and lift it into greatness. This fun house scene is visually stunning, with a Dali-like feel to the painted sets (apparently Orson painted them himself). Subtle visual imagery utilized throughout the film by Welles enhances the plot and makes this a thought-provoking experience.The dialogue is scorching and confusing, delivered superbly by Rita's alternately breathy low voice and helpless, high-pitched little-girl voice. Hayworth proves her acting capabilities in this one, and proves that SHE is the ultimate femme fatale of 'noir'. It's a pity (only a slight one , as Rita was a brilliant dancer) that she did so many delightful yet frothy and often forgettable musicals for Columbia in the 40's instead of darkly-themed noir like this. She was a brilliant actress when given the chance to show off her talent.9/10.
| 1
|
train_454
|
Had a bad day? Dog bit the mailman? Car wouldn't start? People got on your nerves? Then refresh yourself with a delightful experience.Two women decide to pool their resources in answer to an ad for a month's rental of a villa in Italy. Due to financial circumstances, two other women join them. Two have humdrum marital lives; one is an elderly woman who prefers to live in the past; the fourth is a wealthy and beautiful woman wholly jaded by life.As the spell of the villa permeates their spirits, each grows in her own way and is uplifted in her outlook. This also changes the people in their lives who have visited them. As they leave you know the magic of the villa will remain with them...and you will find your outlook altered, for the better. A delightfully uplifting movie!
| 1
|
train_15466
|
I can't understand all the hype about this movie. OK, if you like cheap splatter, you will love this movie, but if you like good stories and good actors - don't watch this. Personally i really disliked the actors in this movie, they seem to be hired straight from the street. The Dialogs are completely flat and you always know what's coming up next. The overall quality of this movie lacks of the supposable very low budget. When we saw this movie (me and 3 other people) we all had in mind, that this movie was made by some people who needed to do this, just to get their graduation at a film school - with the lowest effort. Another issue that really lessens the whole experience is the bad cam (very shaking) and the bad sound, the whole movie seems to be recored with a single microphone.
| 0
|
train_4996
|
I've seen tons of HK actioners, and this one is right at the top of the genre. The action scenes are as exciting and kinetic as anything you've ever seen in any action movie. The kung fu is spectacular, the pyrotechnics eye-popping, the stunt work heartstopping. The editing is perfectly paced, heightening the tension and complimenting the fluid camera work. This film is directed by old pro Corey Yuen, whose resume is stuffed with some of the best work of the genre, including the Jet Li vehicle The Legend of Fong Sai-Yuk. If there is one thing lacking in this film it is the presence of a three-dimensional character, though Martin, the male lead, comes closest to it. This movie is full of archetypes rather than characters--the sexy killer, the goofy thief and his bitchy girlfriend, the cackling villains. That said, Shannon Lee has a terrific screen presence; she's great with the fighting, the stunts, and the guns. When she's onscreen it's hard to take your eyes off her. She's that good. Why isn't this woman a major star?
| 1
|
train_16732
|
Karl Jr and his dad are now running an army on a remote island. They capture a trio of guys who stumble upon the island. Whom after a while fight back. (well the survivors) This one has non-stop blood, gore and carnage, which would have been good if any of it looked remotely real, or if the production didn't look like it was made with a weeks worth of saved up lunch money (I may be overexxagerating there. it was probably just a couple days worth). The horrendous dubbing didn't bother me as much and I suspect if I had been really drunk, some of it MIGHT have been slightly humorous....maybe. But as it is, at merely 78 minutes the movie still felt way too long by.. Oh I don't know... 78 minutes. Don't waste your time.My Grade: F DVD Extras: Bonus movie: "Zombie '90: Extreme Pestilence"; and Trailers for other Shock-o-Rama released films
| 0
|
train_4048
|
Rohmer strays from his usual portraits of french middle class to tell this costume drama about the difficulties of an aristocrat lady during the french revolution. What's more attractive about "La Anglaise..." (apart from the story itself) is the fabulous aesthetics that Rohmer has achieved. The images have been digitally decorated too make them look like baroque pictures. In some moments you can't really say whether your watching a movie or a series of pictures in Louvre Musseum. Every shot is like a piece of art.*My rate: 7.5/10------------------------------ --------------------------------
| 1
|
train_6329
|
The cult movie for every true Russian intellectual. Everything is brilliant, especially acting: it's beyond any praise. The movie, as the book, is full of symbols: my favorite one is the brightest symbol of Razrukha (colloquial Russian word for "devastation", often signifies the period of lifestyle chaos after the 1918-20 Civil War) -- the wide-opened dirty door in the bricky wall squeaking in the snowy wind and the pitch-black hole of the doorway behind it.Now the film is released on DVD with fully restored image and the 5.1 sound, there are well-translated English subtitles too, though some obscene words of Sharikov were replaced by the more mild versions in the translation. I don't know is that DVD available abroad but if you'll find it grab it immediately, it's really worthy of watching.And, in conclusion, a fact: about the 50% of Russians today, mostly youth, can be identified as Sharikovs in a considerable degree. It's the post-Soviet effect: Soviet people appeared to be wholly unprepared for the informational attack of the Western civilization, TV-producers and movie makers have made the entertainment industry and the mass media amazingly aggressive, soulless and thoughtless so that it abetted the darkest instincts of every Russian. Even among the Internet users every third one uses the obscene language in forums and chats because it's amazingly common in colloquial speech.
| 1
|
train_12577
|
I saw this film opening weekend in Australia, anticipating with an excellent cast of Ledger, Edgerton, Bloom, Watts and Rush that the definitive story of Ned Kelly would unfold before me. Unfortunately, despite an outstanding performance by Heath Ledger in the lead role, the plot was paper thin....which doesn't inspire me to read "Our Sunshine". There were some other plus points, the support acting from Edgerton in particular, assured direction from Jordan (confirming his talent on show in Buffalo Soldiers as well), and production design that gave a real feel of harshness to the Australian bush, much as the Irish immigrants of the early 19th century must have seen it. But I can't help feeling that another opportunity has been missed to tell the real story of an Australian folk hero (or was he?)....in what I suspect is a concession to Hollywood and selling the picture in the US. Oh well, at least Jordan and the producers didn't agree to lose the beards just to please Universal...Guess I will just have to content myself with Peter Carey's excellent "Secret History of the Kelly Gang". 4/10
| 0
|
train_14700
|
i love bad shark movies. i really do. i laugh hysterically at them. and the scifi channel was having a marathon of them, culminating in the premier of their new original picture, hammerhead: shark frenzy. based on the previews, it looked like it was going to be HIGHLY amusing. essentially a remake of benchley's creature, really. it was prefaced by a showing of shark attack 3: megalodon, which is shark movie hilarity at its best. i was in the mood; i was ready to go. bring it on, hammerhead-mad-scientist-man! oh, god, was that movie wrong.wrong, wrong, wrong.sick. twisted. MESSED UP.this is theoretical reproduction at its very worst, my friends. when a drugged-out girl is brought out of suspended animation and strapped to a table screaming her head off because the shark-human hybrid fetus the absolutely insane "scientist" deliberately implanted in her womb wants OUT... Jesus monkeys. that's what i call disturbing.that's really how the plot works: hmmm, thought the mad scientist. my son died of cancer, but i brought him back to life by combining his dna with that of a hammerhead shark, because sharks don't succumb to cancer and further hammerheads reproduce via placenta. oh, look! a perfect amphibious being! i've created the next evolution of the human race! I KNOW! let's make him reproduce! but darned if all those shark genes have't made my son bloodthirsty; instead of raping the hot babes i keep sending into his little jungle paradise, he keeps eating him. but check this out! among the random people who have, by way of some unimportant plot twist, ended up on my research island, is the woman to whom my son was engaged before he died! i bet he'll do HER! all this leads up to an extremely touching and heartfelt reunion: woman: you're going to impregnate me? mad scientist: no. he is. (indicates thrashing shark-person in tank) how sweet.DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE. ever.
| 0
|
train_1298
|
A true anomaly in the French cinema ,this despairing work has no equivalent in the contemporary production.One would rather have to look on the side of Louis Malle's "le feu follet" (1963)(the fire within) to find something not completely unlike Harel's effort.Wry and cynical,having lost all his illusions,the hero ,a computer scientist,has got no more reason to live.Absolutely none.Estranged from the human race,he seems to live his life as some kind of entomologist,studying his colleagues.One of them catches his attention:Tisserand-José Garcia plays the most demeaning part of the decade-.Then Tisserand will become some kind of prey:all his pessimism will rub off on this poor man.The scene is the night-club climaxes the strange relationship:the hero tells his victim that his life will always be unfulfilled unless he.... Well now the movie takes a more conventional turn so to speak (Clouzot's misanthropy maybe)but just for a while.The form is weird beyond comment There are two voices-over,one for the narrator who always refers to the main character as "our hero",one for the aforementioned hero.The story takes place,now in Paris,now in Rouen ,Guy de Maupassant's town.In a scene with his shrink ,the hero says the writer's madness was only the expression of his disgust for Man and he draws a parallel between his despair and Maupassant's one.This depressing movie is only suitable for an informed audience.Not for the very short excerpts of X-rated movies,but because after watching it,you may be feeling down in the dumps.
| 1
|
train_56
|
This is one of the most amazing stories I have ever seen. If this film had been directed by Larry Clark, then this story about a school shooting probably would have been shown through the eyes of the killer and whatever led that person to go insane in the first place.Instead, the plot focuses mainly on the aftermath of a school shooting, and how it effected the victims who survived.I had seen Busy Phillips in other films before, but her performance in this movie is by far, her best. The only other movie that I've seen with Erika Christensen is "Swim Fan" which made me almost not want to watch this film, but she turned in a very good performance herself.This is one of the few movies I have seen that was actually able to make me cry. Trust me when I tell you, that doesn't happen very often.Home Room is a beautiful film, and that's all there is too it...
| 1
|
train_18274
|
This movie is a modest effort by Spike Lee. He is capable of much more than this movie.Get on the Bus while apparenly anti racist, does nothing but berate whites and degrade the black status quo. The plot of this movie is about a group of black men who travel on a bus to Louis Farrakhan's million man march. The bus has every type of person you could imagine:gay, muslim, gangbanger and the Uncle Tom(He is thrown off the bus though). There was one only white person on the bus. He was accused of being a racist the minute he got on the bus to drive. Despite him being a jew and the fact that he explained is situation he ended up being a racist and leaving the bus.I hate to say it but films like this need to realize their own hipocracy and rienforcation of steryotypes. This should not be seen as a triumph but a sad dissapointment. You may think I am a racist for writing this but I mean well. Better luck next time Spike.
| 0
|
train_21905
|
I just finished watching this on TV and what can I say but this is the worst film I have EVER seen! I'm embarrassed to be from Melbourne, where the film was made. Diabolical acting, amateurish makeup effects and a REALLY bad soundtrack. As for the plot, well, thats even MORE stupid! Some of the scenes just left me stunned as to how bad it was. There's a reason they put these types of films on late night TV - because they're utter rubbish! Avoid at all costs.
| 0
|
train_14418
|
TV version of "Twister" springs a few leaks but manages to remain watchable. My sister bought this at a Wal-Mart a few years back when it was released, I saw it back then and thought it was okay. Later "Twister" with Bill Pullman and Helen Hunt comes out (or was it before? I think it was '97) and did a better job overall. But "Twister" was more silly fun; this is realistic with a message. It all depends on what you want from a movie with twisters: Twisters, or a low-budget character study?John Schneider and Devon Sawa (he's the reason my sister bought it) star, and Devon Sawa, who went on to "Wild America," "Final Destination" and "Slackers" got his big break here. So in a way, I was one of the first people to see him really take off. I don't know if it's an honor or a shame, I haven't seen how he acts in recent films."Night of the Twisters" all depends on personal taste, like I said, it all depends on what you want from a movie with twisters: Twisters, or a low-budget character study. "Night of the Twister" has the latter. So you decide.I give it a 2.5/5...- John Ulmer
| 0
|
train_4850
|
So your bairns are away on a sleep-over ? The wife is visiting the mother in law? You though are at home. It's a dark and stormy night and there is no football on the telly and the dishwasher needs stacking? So now what are you going to do? I will tell you! Go make an old fashioned cocoa (Frys is best!)Get hold of some ginger nuts and sit down in front of the DVD. Now go select and play Arthur Askeys world war two thriller/horror The Ghost Train, return to that comfortable settee and enjoy the night in!The Ghost Train is a genuine British war time classic! Arthur Askey with his side kick,Stinker Murdoch, entertain you and I suspect the cast, to a high octane, thrills and spills, espionage thriller.It's set in old rural England during the second world war.It centres around a motley group of people that need to stay overnight, through circumstances outside any ones' control, in an old railway waiting room that they discover is haunted by an old train.The plot unfolds neatly and precisely and is a credit to the entire cast it is humorous in parts and at times genuinely scary! (The tale was written by that old boy Godfrey of Dads Army fame and it is clever )Arthur Askey is entertaining and is very at home preforming his routines to you and the cast, he also shows he can act a bit! The cast are never out staged though, even the railway porter and the parrot help give the film the necessary gravitas.Oh and when it ends please remember to stack the dish washer!
| 1
|
train_16456
|
in fact,it's basically the same movie.and they couldn't even get the time line of events correct.maybe that was intentional due to laziness or not caring.either way,this thing is a real woofer.it doesn't even deserved to be called a movie.i viewed this as a so called second feature on the disc containing the original The Boogeyman.i thought my head would explode,and i urge you to run as far in the opposite direction of this thing,if you should be cursed with the misfortune of combing across it's path.it should come with a warning label like:Warning-may cause your i.q to drop several points if you are within it's vicinity.for me,there's no doubt this thing is a 0/10
| 0
|
train_24558
|
Repugnant Bronson thriller. Unfortunately, it's technically good and I gave it 4/10, but it's so utterly vile that it would be inconceivable to call it "entertainment". Far more disturbing than a typical slasher film.
| 0
|
train_9944
|
Sure, the plot isn't Oldboy. It seems the only "great" movies these days are amazingly shocking or high-budget/hyped in some way.Spin Kick is a drama/comedy about a group of people who decide to pour their hearts into tae kwon do. Regardless of what you expect from this film, you're guaranteed to feel moved by the work, pain, and expectations that the characters force themselves to experience. Though comedic at times, many moments and characters are rendered beautifully: there's the old guard character who takes things too seriously, the hoodlum turned good-guy who just wants a second chance at life, the meek team-substitute who would die happy if he just won once in his life, and many other well-rounded characters with their own problems-- but most importantly, their own their hopes and dreams. While the plot and the goals of the movie are simple, these aspects of the movie merely highlight the development of the characters as they overcome their personal and inter-personal struggles. In short, this film will leave you feeling fresh, determined, and satisfied.
| 1
|
train_23771
|
We know from other movies that the actors are good but they cannot save the movie. A waste of time. The premise was not too bad. But one workable idea (interaction between real bussinessmen and Russian mafia) is not followed by an intelligent script
| 0
|
train_23965
|
Without a doubt, this is one of the worst pictures I ever actually paid money to see - the kind of flick you choose out of desperation at the mall cinema during a Christmas holiday when you have missed the start times for anything good but still are dead set on seeing a movie! And that is exactly how I came to see this stink bomb...At the distance of the better part of three decades I can still smell the rotting fish that constitute this story line. Unbelievable plot - that a killer whale carries a grudge against an individual not of the sea - is laughable. And that's about all, except for a completely out-of-place "love theme" that plays over the finish of a film devoid of a love story. At least Charlotte Rampling is lovely (in a two dimensional role) but Richard Harris just chews up the scenery. He was no Captain Quint (Robert Shaw) and this is no "Jaws". Mercifully, I have put most of it out of mind and when I run across it on television air casts I move on immediately. "Danger, Will Robinson!" See the current t.v. commercial showing a husband and wife whale-watching ("Orca - I love Orca...") - at least it is over in sixty seconds. This flick represents 92 minutes of my life that I will never get back.
| 0
|
train_13299
|
In some ways, the concept behind the storyline was a rather interesting blend of several typical movie types in an interesting combination. However, no point in this movie was so obvious that it did not deserve lingering close-up shots. I felt as though I had been beat over the head with the so-called mysterious explanation for the disease killing people.The writer appears to have simply lifted clichés from other movies as a substitute for writing lines adapted to actual characters. The actors did not help matters. No chemistry. I guess they were supposed to develop some kind of attraction if only for the reason that such is an essential element of these stories. However, the writers didn't work very hard to develop the chemistry. Sure, they're both attractive, but whether they're attractive to each other seemed to be an open question.The confidence Turner's character shows in Sabato's developed far too quickly and for no particular reason. Sabato's character is supposed to be a discredited doctor who just can't seem to play by the rules. Think of the Jeff Goldblum character in "Independence Day." Usually, that kind of character is supposed to demonstrate some kind of talent or brilliance. Sabato's character does not. He's Cassandra with just the crazy and all the prophetic skills of a magic eight ball. He appears to be right by random chance.The death scenes are comical. Every actor was really trying more than a little to hard to demonstrate the agony inflicted on them. The symptoms looked like bad claymation, sort of like that video from the 80s, Peter Gabriel, I think.
| 0
|
train_21526
|
This has to be some of the worst direction I've seen. The close-up can be a very powerful shot, but when every scene consists of nothing but close-ups, it loses all its impact. Tony Scott has some very beautiful scenery to work with, the backdrops of Mexico, the cantinas, the beautiful estate where Anthony Quinn lives, and the dusty towns Costner rolls through on his journey for revenge. Unfortunately we only catch quick glimpses of these places before the camera cuts to a picture of a big, giant head. Even the transition scenes where Costner is driving alone across Mexico quickly cut to a close-up. The score is over-dramatic and intrusive, dictating every emotion we should feel. The story itself should have been handled much better. Among other things, too many people pop up out of nowhere to help Costner along - it's just bad writing. It's a typical thriller storyline, but many others have taken the same premise and done outstanding things with it. Costner's No Way Out had a somewhat similar storyline, but it was a much better movie. The ending was completely anticlimactic and suffered from the most melodramatic scoring of the film. This movie was never going to be great, but if we saw more of Mexico and less of giant heads this film might have been watchable.
| 0
|
train_23624
|
I generally don't give worry much about violence in films, or a vast amount of philosophy, symbolism or psychology. All this is very well with me and the film brings a lot of the above to us. There is beautiful pictures especially of the lake and the nature, a good setting of characters, a good direction. This film could be voted for as a good film. However, it is spoiled for two reasons and both of these reasons in relation make this film simply disgusting.First of all there is violence used against living creatures to make this film. Not movie violence, I am talking about REAL violence. This violence alone maybe could be justified if not and thats reason number two; the message of the film was not mere introspection about the directors twisted relation towards women. Not that we all don't have some real twists with women.(respectively men). But the conclusion of the film ruins it all. *spoiler* Our "heroine" finally dies, (by here own hand if I remember correctly I saw this film years ago and it enraged me, now the guy is out with a new film witch I am certainly not going to watch)and is now even more clearly depicted as some kind of natural demon, nature growing over her, in particular her sex.. Of course it is the director who "kills" the women heroine. Women have to die, especially if men are attracted by their sexuality. That seems to be the final conclusion.**end spoiler*Well, well all that possibly would be fine with me if the director would have kept his view to himself. But to use big pictures, artsy directions cruelty to living creatures, just to say men can be frightened of women, and men are cruel to women. Thats just not enough. I knew when I saw this film it would achieve good critics for the "philosophical, eastern and artistic" and whatever approach. But to me this film is just totally marred.
| 0
|
train_16975
|
awful, just awful! my old room mate used to watch this junk and it drove me crazy. the book is one of my favorites and its a shame that some people will never know what it is really like because their first impressions are from dribble like this. they changed so much it is hardly recognisable. which baffles me since the book reads like a soap opera anyway, providing enough fodder for modern day entertainment. it's like one of those Lifetime movies that say "based on a true story" but are completely fictional. there is none of the emotion or depth of the book, just mindless melodrama. if you are a high school student looking for a way to get out of reading, i suggest you try another version.
| 0
|
train_8441
|
For anyone who liked the series this movie will be something to watch. However, it also leaves you wanting more. I loved the way that every character (detective)made an appearance. Least with the ending of who is the fourth chair for they leave a reason for another movie. My guess is Bayless of course. This like the series was a very well put together series of scenes. This is a series I wish had lived on. Thanks to the cast for some wonderful TV.
| 1
|
train_22870
|
I regret every single second of the time I lost while watching this movie, really. Unhappily, I always find it hard to switch off a movie once I started watching it. Especially, when it's such a classic or what people use to call a classic. I think that this is one of those movies every movie-lover should have watched at least one time, so that was why I watched it. Don't get me wrong, I like Humphrey Bogart and his wife Lauren Bacall both as a couple and as actors, but this movie was a big fraud in my opinion. No really good plot, neither an espionage flick nor a romantic love story. Well, not even a convincing mixture of both of these genres. Only thing which caused tension was that it was uncertain whether 'Bogey' and Bacall would stay together in the end or part from one another. I think "To Have and Have Not" is very overrated and Bogart was in many better films during the 1940s.
| 0
|
train_14766
|
Ringmaster, Jerry Springer's pathetic excuse for wasting film that should be recycled as toilet paper recently destroyed my confidence in the art of film. First of all, it was made. Second of all, people went to see it. Third, some people voted it the best movie they have ever seen. If a monkey could make a movie, i'm 100 percent sure that it would be 1 billion times as good. Most crappy movies have their moments, (even Godzilla had a few cool special effects) this film's moment was when I left the theater nauseated. The only thing that possibly could've made this movie any worse would be if Jerry Springer was the star. If I want to stare at crap for an hour and a half, i'll take a dump in a can. If anyone didn't utterly despise this movie, I pity you, and your children, and your children's children's children; however, contrary to Springer's beliefs, I clearly don't condone children having sex.
| 0
|
train_8867
|
I sincerely hope that at least the first season of Cosby is released on DVD someday. The episode with Hilton's eccentric genius brother, George (played by the late Roscoe Lee Browne), is classic hilarity. It reflects the classic sibling rivalry and love between brothers whose lives took different paths but both ended up happy.Mr. Cosby and Ms. Rashad brilliantly recaptured the chemistry that they shared on The Cosby Show for many years and to put them in a more middle-class role shows the dimensions they can take as artists. The roster of comedic dynamite...Madeline Kahn, Phylicia Rashad, and Mr. Cosby ...classic genius!
| 1
|
train_7586
|
L'Hypothèse du tableau volé/The Hypothesis of the Stolen Painting (1979) begins in the courtyard of an old, three-story Parisian apartment building. Inside, we meet The Collector, an elderly man who has apparently devoted his life to the study of the six known existing paints of an obscure Impressionist-era painter, Tonnerre. A narrator recites various epigrams about art and painting, and then engages in a dialogue with The Collector, who describes the paintings to us, shows them to us, tells us a little bit about the painter and the scandal that brought him down, and then tells us he's going to show us something....As he walks through a doorway, we enter another world, or worlds, or perhaps to stretch to the limits, other possible worlds. The Collector shows us through his apparently limitless house, including a large yard full of trees with a hill; within these confines are the 6 paintings come to life, or half-way to life as he walks us through various tableaux and describes to us the possible meanings of each painting, of the work as a whole, of a whole secret history behind the paintings, the scandal, the people in the paintings, the novel that may have inspired the paintings. And so on, and so on. Every room, every description, leads us deeper into a labyrinth, and all the while The Collector and The Narrator engage in their separate monologues, very occasionally verging into dialogue, but mostly staying separate and different.I watched this a second time, so bizarre and powerful and indescribable it was, and so challenging to think or write about. If I have a guess as to what it all adds up to, it would be a sly satire of the whole nature of artistic interpretation. An indicator might be found in two of the most amusing and inexplicable scenes are those in which The Collector poses some sexless plastic figurines -- in the second of them, he also looks at photos taken of the figurines that mirror the poses in the paintings -- then he strides through his collection, which is now partially composed of life-size versions of the figures. If we think too much about it and don't just enjoy it, it all becomes just faceless plastic....Whether I've come to any definite conclusions about "L'Hypothèse du tableau volé", or not, I can say definitely that outside of the early (and contemporaneous) works of Peter Greenaway like "A Walk Through H", I've rarely been so enthralled by something so deep, so serious, so dense....and at heart, so mischievous and fun.
| 1
|
train_22107
|
Don't listen to the misleading title "Werewolf Woman". The Europeans are well known for putting an emphasis on sex and nudity over actual scares in their horror films, but this one here is just a bit too much. "Werewolf Woman" seems to have a sleazy sex scene copped off with the title character going crazy and brutally killing her partner. Fun the first few times, but a hundred minutes of this becomes very monotonous quickly. Shes not even a werewolf, but a schizo chick whose ancestor was hanged for lycanthropy. The film can't even decide its tone, with the first ten minutes (a flashback) being legitimate supernatural horror (I thought I was in for a trash classic after these) to a rather poor character study of the female being repeatedly abused and tortured to a revenge thriller. At the end, the director insists this is based on a true story. Yeah, all right.To be fair, there are a few entertaining aspects of the production. The title werewolf woman is a looker and there are a few nice gore effects and nude scenes. However, these become rather monotonous quickly. Also, the dubbed dialog is pretty hilarious in a camp fashion, especially the worlds most swinging doctor (he drinks on the job). Unfortunately, the film becomes pretty irritating fast. There's no actual plot or anything else really. Its a shame, because reading a description I felt the film had some real potential. "Werewolf Woman" is far overlong, slow moving, and a bit too pointless, even by the standards of the exploitation genre. (4/10)
| 0
|
train_2459
|
A beautiful and touching movie that deserves a wider viewing than it is likely to get. Semra Turan plays Aicha, a second generation Turkish immigrant, who tries to break the mold. Neither entirely at home with her moderately conservative Muslim family, nor with her liberal Danish friends, Aicha's martial arts experience becomes a fight to find herself and have the strength to allow herself to be who she wants to be in spite of both family and friends.Director Natasha Arthy manages to balance introspection and narrative so that it has depth without becoming ponderous philosophical discourse, and drawing on Xian Gao's choreography skills pays off in spectacular fight sequences. In the end, however, it is Semra Turan's stunning debut performance that gives this movie spirit. Raw charisma and requisite martial arts skills are complimented by heart to make her personal drama believable.Well worth your while.
| 1
|
train_12068
|
If you have any sort of appreciation for character and dialogue, and any sense of American cultural history, you will find a lot of very absorbing material in this film. It probably was originally a play, and that's why it's dialogue heavy, but I can't stress enough how these icons that we only have a shallow understand of are made into truly complex and wonderful characters.This film is better than any college course for telling you how to create a character-driven story.
| 1
|
train_20859
|
Despite some moments in heavy rain, an encounter with a drunk as well as an organ grinder with a gypsy and a monkey, and a stay in a sanitarium, this Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle silent comedy short with support from Buster Keaton and Al St. John is only fitfully amusing though there is a quite funny sequence of Arbuckle in drag flirting with Buster that's the ultimate in "meet cute" scenes especially since it's one of the few times we see The Great Stone Face smile and laugh in the movies! Also, many scenes seem to have been jump cut edited possibly because of overuse of the film stock. Still, if you're an Arbuckle or Keaton completist, Good Night, Nurse! is certainly worth a look.
| 0
|
train_19568
|
Chillers starts on a cold, dark stormy night as a bus drops off three passenger's outside a bus station, a young boy named Mason (Jesse Emery), a college professor Dr. Howard Conrow (David Wohl) & a woman named Sharon Phillips (Laurie Pennington). Inside they discover that they have missed their connecting bus & are stranded for the night. In the waiting area they find two other people, Ronnie (Jim Wolf) & a sleeping woman named Lindsay (Marjorie Fitzsimmons) who is currently having a terrifying nightmare...While swimming in an indoor pool Lindsay encounters & befriends guy named Billy Waters (Jesse Johnson), the next time Lindsay sees Billy he dives into the pool & then seemingly disappears into thin air before he surfaces. Shortly after Lindsay discovers that Billy Water died in a diving accident 5 years ago...Lindsay wakes up & tells the others about her nightmare, everyone else responds by saying that they too have suffered disturbing dreams recently & decide to share them to pass the time...Next up is Mason who tells a story of how he & two friends, Scott (David R. Hamm) & Jimmy (Will Tuckwiller), are terrorised during a camping trip...Then it's Sharon whose story revolves around a newsman named Tom Williams (Thom Delventhal) who she phones up, in no time at all Tom is at her front door but he actually turns out to be a Vampire...It's Ronnie's turn next & he describes how he discovers that he can bring the dead back to life, unfortunately he brings executed mass murderer Nelson Caulder (Bradford Boll) back to homicidal life...Finally Dr. Conrow tells a tale of how two of his students brought an ancient Aztec war-god named Ixpe (Kimberly Harbour) back to life...Then it's back to the bus station for one last (predictable) twist...Written, produced & directed by Daniel Boyd Chillers is one of the worst horror anthologies I've ever seen & I usually really like this sub-genre. The script by Boyd lacks what is needed for films such as Chillers to work, you can see the final twist coming a mile off & each story is really lame. The first one is totally pointless & didn't seem to have an ending & the best thing about these anthologies are the short snappy stories that are rounded off with a neat twist. The second story is predictable &, again, just ends without any payoff. So it continues throughout Chillers that each story is deeply unsatisfying to watch & have no reward for doing so. The character's & dialogue are poorly written, the stories seem to have no original ideas of their own & as a whole the film totally sucks. At least each story doesn't last long & I liked the idea behind the linking segments.Director Boyd was obviously working with a very low budget & it shows. All I can say is if you want to watch a 15 odd minute short story set entirely within a swimming pool then Chillers is for you. The stories are neither clever, scary or have any sort of tension or build up to anything. Having said that it does have a few nice scenes & some surprising competence shines through on occasion. Violence & gore wise there isn't much happening in Chillers, a ripped out heart, a decapitated head & a bitten off hand is as gory as it gets.Technically Chillers is poor stuff that won't impress anyone. Basic cinematography, bad music, cheap special effects & below average production values. Chillers also features one of the worst closing theme songs ever, period. The acting is also of a very low standard.I am sure a lot of effort was put into Chillers as a low budget film & at least the filmmakers tried so I will give credit for that at least, but that still doesn't stop me from thinking it's crap. Similar anthology films like Tales From the Crypt (1972), Asylum (1972), The Vault of Horror (1973), Dr. Terror's House of Horrors (1965), Creepshow (1982) & Tales From the Darkside: The Movie (1990) are far superior to Chillers so watch one of those instead.
| 0
|
train_16519
|
Dakota (1988) was another early Lou Diamond Phillips starring vehicle. This film is similar to the later released film Harley. There are a few differences but they're both the same. I don't know which one came first. I guess it'll remain one of the mysteries of life. But they both are troubled "kids" who are trying to turn there lives around. Instead of bikes this one involves horses. They're basically the same movie and they're both cheesy as hell. If you're a serious L.D.P. fan then I recommend that you watch them both. You get some extreme mugging and posturing from L.D.P. if you're game then go for it.Not recommended, except for L.D.P. fans!!!
| 0
|
train_2991
|
I bought this while I was playing chess in Hastings. I am from Denmark though. It is very good. Definitely with an understanding of the horror genre. The monster towards the end is very scary. People who criticise this on IMDB should recall that it was a huge succes among serious horror critics.
| 1
|
train_6917
|
This is a story of the Winchester Rifle Model 1873 "The Gun That Won The West" To cowman, outlaw, peace officer or soldier, the Winchester 73 was a treasured possession. An Indian would sell his soul to own one...Winchester 73 is the first collaboration between director Anthony Mann and actor James Stewart, a duo that would go on to create a run of superior Westerns that added a new, psychological depth to the genre. The story sees Stewart as Lin McAdam pursuing the man who killed his father. Riding into Dodge City with his trusty friend, Johnny Williams {Millard Mitchell}, Lin runs into Dutch Henry Brown {Stephen McNally}, the man he wants. But with Wyatt Earp {Will Geer} having taken all the guns from those entering the town, both men are unable to have the shoot-out that they are ready for. The men instead square up in a competition to win a Winchester 73 rifle, a competition that Lin eventually wins. But before he can leave town with the magnificent prize, Dutch ambushes him, steals the rifle and skips town fast. As Lin sets off in hate filled pursuit of both man and rifle, the rifle will changed hands a number of times, with each time adding another dimension as the day of reckoning for all approaches.Very much a benchmark for what became known as the so-called "psychological Western", Winchester 73 is basically a story of a decent man driven to borderline insanity by an event in his past. Tho shot in black and white {the only one of the duos Westerns that was} the landscapes are still breathtaking feasts for the eyes. The tone is set with the opening scene as Lin and Johnny on horseback, and in silhouette, amble over a hillside as they make their way to Dodge City. It's just the starting point that would see Mann use his vistas as a way of running concurrent with his characters emotional states.Stewart gives one of his finest and most intense performances as McAdam, proving once and for all that he was one of Americas finest and most versatile actors. The support cast isn't too bad either. Shelley Winters is excellent as the sole female in amongst the machismo, while Mitchell, McNally, Geer and the always great Dan Duryea add further class to proceedings. There's even bit parts for Tony Curtis and Rock Hudson in here, tho the latter playing an Indian brave is a stretch too far.Originally the film was a project for Fritz Lang, who even had the script ready to run. But Lang walked away from it, something that proved to be a blessing for Western fans. For as great as a director that Lang was, with Mann directing {and with a new script from Borden Chase & Robert Richards in hands} it set the wheels in motion to alter the course of the genre. Not only with the further efforts that Mann & Stewart produced, but also in who they influenced. The likes of Budd Boetticher, Nicholas Ray and Sam Fuller were all taking notes, and gleefully for the Western purists, they followed suit and carried the psychological torch still further.A big hit at the box office back on release, Winchester 73 is a magnificent film that still packs a punch in the modern age. 9.5/10
| 1
|
train_14074
|
There is no story! The plot is hopeless! A filmed based on a car with a stuck accelerator, no brakes, and a stuck automatic transmission gear lever cannot be good! I would have stopped that car within one minute whether I was in it or in the police car constantly following it. I feel sorry for the actors that had to put up with such a poor script. The few scenes that some similarity to action was heavily over-dramatized, and as far from reality you can get. In addition, there were a lot of blunders, for instance the hood of the runaway car, which was popped doing 100mph. At first it just folded over the windshield, like it would in reality, but then, afterwards, it blew off. The car was later in the movie observed with the hood on....This film was nothing but annoying, stay away from it!
| 0
|
train_16658
|
This is by far the worst movie I have ever seen!!!! I can honestly say I have never seen a movie worse than this one!!!AND I MEAN NEVER!!!!I'm a BIG fan of "B" horror movies. As you may imagine.... I've been exposed to some of worst that the movie industry has to offer.I was lured to this movie by it's title. I mean c'mon... what true fan of horror wouldn't be intrigued by a title like "Vampires vs. Zombies"??? Images of the "undead" battling each other to the "undeath" danced in my head. I thought to myself... "this I've got to see"!!!!Well.... sorry to say.... "this I wish I hadn't seen"!!!!!This movies title is very misleading to say the least. There was no vampires fighting zombies. In fact, there is no plot!!!! If you were to ask me what this movie is all about I could honestly tell you I have no idea!!!There was no plot!!!! There was no story!!!! This movie absolutely makes no sense at all!!!!At the end of this debacle... I found myself feeling sorry for the poor souls who had invested their money into this project for they surely have no business sense!!!
| 0
|
train_892
|
sammo has to have a 10 out of 10 for this movie as it has everything. great story, great fights, great characters and great cameos.this film sees dick wei take on billy chow and chong fat. sammo takes on lau kar leung in a casino, sammo loses the fight but what a fight it is full of high tempo action and elements of comedy thrown in.some great and touching moments in the film, lam ching ying pops up in a cameo and gets killed off - gutted.the end sequence will have you reaching for the rewind button, as its one of the best end fights I've seen. sammo takes on loads of guys and ends up squaring up to billy chow.
| 1
|
train_2513
|
Beautifully done. A lot of angst. Friendship may not endure all, but in the end it's all that matters, or so a group of friends learn. I have watched it over and over again. The music is also amazing. When Kei loses the one friend he has he gives up until he meets Sho, an orphan boy who is not repelled by his true nature. In the lawless streets of Mallepa they struggle for their own place among a melting pot of Asian races, and learn that sometimes being on top can cost you more than you are ever ready to pay. A surprise ending that grips as much as the whole movie does. I couldn't get enough of it. Gackt and Hyde do a wonderful job of acting, proving they are more than pretty boys who sing.
| 1
|
train_3409
|
North Africa in the 1930's. To a small Arab town on the edge of the Sahara comes a beautiful woman looking for meaning to her life & a handsome Trappist monk fleeing from his crisis of faith. They will meet and passions will be stirred, but not even the Sand Diviner knows if they will find happiness or sorrow, here, in THE GARDEN OF ALLAH.The plot is pure hokum, but the film is still great fun & beautiful to look at. Marlene Dietrich & Charles Boyer are a superb screen couple. She is, to put it simply, gorgeous, and Boyer gives a most effective, understated performance, letting his sensitive face do much of his acting for him. The supporting cast is excellent: Basil Rathbone, in a sympathetic role as a Count who loves the desert; Joseph Schildkraut as a friendly, talkative guide (all the "Arabic" he & others speak in the film is pure gibberish); Lucile Watson as a gentle Mother Superior; Alan Marshal as an honorable young French officer; Tilly Losch as a dangerous dancer; Henry Brandon as a comic porter; John Carradine as the mysterious Sand Diviner; and magnificent Sir C. Aubrey Smith as a wise old priest.Movie mavens will recognize Helen Jerome Eddy as a nun; Marcia Mae Jones & Bonita Granville (peeking over the nun's shoulder) as convent girls; gaunt Nigel De Brulier as a monastery lector; and Ferdinand Gottschalk as a hotel clerk, all uncredited.Color films of the 1930's are both rare & lovely to look at, and this movie is no exception - the cinematography is as colorful as the desert itself. THE GARDEN OF ALLAH was the first Technicolor film to be shot on location. Yuma, Arizona gave the film makers all the sand dunes they could desire, but contaminated drinking water & 135 degree heat soon had the company in revolt. When the daily rushes showed Boyer's face had burned a bright tomato red, producer David O. Selznick finally gave in. The remainder of the film was shot on a Hollywood sound stage.
| 1
|
train_3818
|
Secret Sunshine marks the return of director Lee Changdong to the film-making world after a multi-year absence. Having three critically acclaimed films already under his belt, he recruits now veteran thespian Jeon Doyeon and her considerable (Cannes-winning) talents for the primary role of Lee Shinae. What follows is a journey through one woman's tragedy and an exploration of her coping mechanisms.One of the things that becomes apparent while watching Secret Sunshine is that it doesn't really care to follow any specific genre, but rather picks up genre traits when necessary to convey what it's trying to convey. The story itself follows Lee Shinae as she moves with her son to the city of Milyang (whose Sino-Corean translates to Secret Sunshine). She moves to Milyang in the aftermath of the death of her husband as it was his hometown, so the film is born from tragedy. And you think things might just get better as she opens up a piano shop and encounters a bit of a bumbling nice-guy mechanic Jongchan (played by Song Kangho). But this isn't a romantic comedy.As we (and Jongchan, doggedly) follow Shinae as she encounters Milyang and the fate that it has in store for her, the cracks in her armor quickly become apparent. She is a troubled woman trying to grasp onto her own strength to overcome tragedy and we watch as she finds that it's not enough. Secret Sunshine still manages to follow a mostly Aristotelian dramatic arc, but pulls back on the catharsis, which might confound some viewers, especially the ending, but the novelistic symbolism present in the name of Milyang, the discussions of sunshine and the imagery used in the film very well left me satisfied, once I started to think over the film some more.Ms. Jeon is rather impressive throughout, especially considering that if the role were any less well played, it would've quickly turned into a rather painful melodrama, but she captures the nuances of Shinae's attempts to deal with her losses with a layer of subtlety. Mr. Song has a much smaller role in this film than other films, but he performs adequately, appropriately giving stage to Ms. Jeon. Technically, the film is well done in a classical sense. No flashy aesthetics are employed here--the director is clearly trying to let the story tell itself. I think my only real complaint, and one that might not be able to be fixed, is that despite all the time we spend with Shinae, there is a bit of distance between Shinae and the audience (or at least, me). I think some of this stems from the nature of the work, because if total empathy were pushed, then we wouldn't be able to see the problems that Shinae has objectively. On the other hand, I never felt moved along with Shinae's plight, despite her many tears and increasingly erratic behavior.All the same, the film still stands quite impressive, especially in that it stimulated me to think about it, the further meanings present in it and its ruminations on tragedy, coping, self-deception, isolation and faith stuck with me well after the credits had finished running. Propelled by a strong lead performance, I honestly didn't notice its 2.25 hour runtime. And that says something. Well done. 8/10.
| 1
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.