id
stringlengths 7
11
| text
stringlengths 52
10.2k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|---|
train_17947
|
Only the most ardent DORIS DAY fan could find this one even bearable to watch. When one thinks of the wealth of material available for a story about New York City's most famous blackout, a film that could have dealt with numerous real-life stories of what people had to cope with, this scrapes the bottom of the barrel for lack of story-telling originality.Once again Doris is indignant because she suspects she may have been compromised on the night of the blackout when she returned to her Connecticut lodgings, took a sleeping potion and woke up in the morning with a man who had done the same, wandering into the house by mistake.Nobody is able to salvage this mess--not Doris, not ROBERT MORSE, TERRY-THOMAS, PATRICK O'NEAL or LOLA ALBRIGHT. As directed by Hy Averback, it's the weakest vehicle Day found herself in, committed to do the film because of her husband's machinations and unable to get out of it. Too bad.
| 0
|
train_13871
|
I can't figure out how anyone can get a budget for a movie this bad. It's like the TV station are desperate for anything, anything at all. They're buried underneath a bunch of snow, the electricity constantly flashes on and off, yet magically there is a background light that stays constant. Where does all this (fake) light come from? That, and all that stupid bickering between the characters. They seem to be more interested in complaining to each other than trying to invent ways to survive. It tries to create that feel of emergency and people helping. But because it's such bad directing and acting, you will not your Florence Nightingale fix with this flick, sorry. I'm joining the negative feedback, and I concur that this is one of the worst movies ever.
| 0
|
train_18546
|
This film is basically two hours of Dafoe's character drinking himself - nearly literally - to death. The only surprise in this film is that you didn't have enough clues or character knowledge to be surprised. It was just a grim, sad waste of time.Willem Dafoe is excellent actor. Peter Stormare is an excellent actor. But this film just sucked. Slow doesn't make the movie bad, it was just bad. The sketchy plot mixed with artistic ramblings of anamorphic detail aren't cohesively drawn together in a meaningful way for a plot except to highlight some gore which is illustrated from several perspectives, finally at the end. I really appreciate the artistic vision, but as entertainment, it put me to sleep. (Seriously, I fell asleep and had to re-watch the film - which was even more disappointing.)I generally don't like to make negative comments or reviews on the works of others, even when they suck, but this film warranted one. It's just too bad that these great actors were shamed with this end result.
| 0
|
train_24933
|
I like to keep my reviews short and simple, but this pretty much sums it up. You can not beat the original two for a number of reasons one of which including the directing talent of Chris Columbous.This movie had terrible directing covered up by even more terrible acting. I cant even believe these people are considered actors.Painful to sit through and watch. The storyline was a complete joke about a secret chip and Russian terrorists on a painstaking quest to get it back. Horrible, rent one of the original tow and enjoy yourself! The movie wasn't even set during Christmas like the original. Home Alone was turned from an excellent Christmas time family comedy movie to a joke with no moral or plot!
| 0
|
train_22227
|
Another of my delves into the bargain bin, this movie gave me exactly what I expected - a load of trashy horror complete with screaming ladies.It all started so well - I liked the little intro with the "newsreel" about the young couple being exposed to a nuclear blast, and was totally absorbed right up until the first person caught fire...From then onwards the film descended into outright silliness, and at times became almost embarrassing to watch. When the heroine turned out to have been afflicted with the same condition as the main character (the ability to light one's own farts without the aid of a match) it seemed almost as if someone had thrown the idea in at the last moment ("that'll be good!" you can almost hear them say...) As for the almost psychic link between the main character and the nuclear power plant, well...The movie came across as cheap tat - if you pay more than £1.50 for it you've been done.
| 0
|
train_12569
|
I thought this was a very clunky, uninvolving version of a famous Australian story. Heath Ledger and Orlando Bloom were very good in their roles, and gave their characters some personality; but the whole thing felt forced and mechanical.The beginning could have been a lot more involving; perhaps starting with a shootout, and then flashing back for a recap of how they got there or that sort of thing. And I felt like every scene was routinely predictable and signposted, like a very bad tv soap.I was really looking forward to this movie, and hoping for something a lot better. The only thing I can say in its favour is that it beats the Mick Jagger version, but not by much.
| 0
|
train_4077
|
I first saw this back in the early 90s on UK TV, i did like it then but i missed the chance to tape it, many years passed but the film always stuck with me and i lost hope of seeing it TV again, the main thing that stuck with me was the end, the hole castle part really touched me, its easy to watch, has a great story, great music, the list goes on and on, its OK me saying how good it is but everyone will take there own best bits away with them once they have seen it, yes the animation is top notch and beautiful to watch, it does show its age in a very few parts but that has now become part of it beauty, i am so glad it has came out on DVD as it is one of my top 10 films of all time. Buy it or rent it just see it, best viewing is at night alone with drink and food in reach so you don't have to stop the film.Enjoy
| 1
|
train_19214
|
Oh, well, this movie starts off well. It's kinda funny and seems like it could be a fun movie. Then it becomes a bit serious and goes off the rails. It sort of wants to be 'Boogie Nights' but it can't achieve it. If only it stayed with the tone of the first quarter of the film...
| 0
|
train_23789
|
Elizabeth Ward Gracen, who will probably only be remembered as one of Bill Clinton's "bimbo eruptions" (they have pills for that now!) is probably the weakest element of this show. It really continues the tired formula of the Highlander Series- The hero immortal encounters another immortal with flashbacks about the last time they met, but there is some conflict, and there is a sword fight at the end where you have a cheap special effects sequence.Then you have the character of Nick Wolf. Basically, your typical unshaven 90's hero, with the typical "Sexual tension" storyline. (Seriously, why do you Hollywood types think sexual tension is more interesting than sex.) This was a joint Canadian/French production, so half the series takes place in Vancouver imitating New York, and the other half is in Paris... Just like Highlander did.
| 0
|
train_13542
|
First of all, write the script on a napkin. Who needs more than that? After all we're not a Hollywood film.Then get amateur actors. It will be good for the festival hype. After all, who needs people who have spent years honing their craft? Then, hire a cinematographer who doesn't know how to light. You see, if it's well-lit, it won't look "real" and the festival people won't like it. Who needs to have professional level photography anyway? Then hire a ten-year old who has never held a camera to be your operator. It will give your movie that completely amateurish touch that festival screeners will mistake for "reality" and guarantee that even though you will empty the seats from real people, critics and a small sliver of the audience who over-intellectualize will scream "genius" because they won't believe this was just complete amateur-hour.Once you've done that, buy your ticket to the Festival of Bad Movies aka Sundance.What a sad waste.
| 0
|
train_5998
|
The Cure is an amazing film...So suspenseful and just so REAL! I was lucky enough to catch a screening of 'The Cure' at it's NYC premiere and it completely blew me away! I also heard it won an award from that particular festival, and it definitely deserved it. The first thing that struck out at me was the cinematography. Eric Giovon did an amazing job. The shooting style of the love scene halfway into the film was amazing. A love scene was necessary in this film, and Jafri got the point across but also kept the scene tasteful. Giovon and Jafri make an excellent creative team and they should definitely work together on future projects. Judy Maier's narration was so surreal but simultaneously heart wrenching, it made me feel what the main character felt. I'm a very tough critic but i must say The Cure is one of my favorite films..JUST LOVE IT! If you haven't seen it yet, check it out!
| 1
|
train_23252
|
This film was so disappointing. From the blurb that made me decide to see Phantom Love (why is it called this?)I had expected something arty and thoughtful with beautiful imagery. It did have some interesting images but these often seemed random and made no sense. In fact they seemed like they were inserted to fill in time. In the end the effect was listless.I believe the film was meant to be atmospheric, but it just wasn't. The lack of a coherent plot did not help matters. You might say it was mysterious, but I think it was just incoherent with no atmosphere.The main character seemed to be disturbed but the plot did not draw me in enough to care about her situation. Without looking at the cast list I would not have known that you see the main character as a child. The film has very little context for the time, place or character. I am not a prude but the sex scenes (there were several) seemed pointless and confused me further, I recognised Lulu but I was not sure if it was the same man, different men, a lover, her husband or was she a prostitute. It was only when I saw the credits that I discovered the hairy back was meant to belong to her lover. This film did manage to make what should have been shocking (dream sequences involving Lulu's mother) seem a bit boring.The nail filing actually made more sense, as it did give some indication of Lulu's emotional state. I will not fault the actors as I don't they had a lot to work on.I do not know if the lack of context or flow in the film was because of ineptitude or because it was pretentious but the end result was dull.I can't be bothered talking about it anymore.
| 0
|
train_16818
|
I thought this was one of the most depressing holiday movies I have ever seen--the others being THE Christmas WIFE and JACK FROST. All three movies are about death. If you LIKE being thoroughly depressed, then by all means watch this film or any of the others. In this film, the acting is good and some of the scenery (apart when people are dying) is lovely. But, I am worried that a clinically depressed person might accidentally see the film and do themselves in! Despite a "happily ever after" ending, the major portion of this film is one awful disaster following another. And, for some crazy reason, I DON'T WANT TO BE DEPRESSED when I watch a Christmas movie (I know this sounds crazy folks--after all, isn't bawling your eyes out and feeling miserable what the holidays are all about anyway?).For a more uplifting viewing experience, try the forgotten HOUSE WITHOUT A Christmas TREE, George C. Scott's Christmas CAROL or A Christmas STORY instead--unless of course you like being miserable.
| 0
|
train_13688
|
Kurosawa really blew it on this one. Every genius is allowed a failure. The concept is fine but the execution is badly blurred.There is an air of fantasy about this film making it something of an art film. The poverty stricken of Tokyo deserve a fairer and more realistic portrayal. Many of them have interesting stories to tell. A very disappointing film.
| 0
|
train_15552
|
This Santa movie starts off strange and I think Santa might be a pedo. Instead of the usual elf toy makers, this Santa has apparently kidnapped kids from all across the globe and makes them sing a bit like characters from "It's a Small World"! I guess there are no child labor laws on the weird astral plane on which he lives (it's apparently NOT the North Pole and not on Earth)!! None of these kids seem very happy and I kept wanting to see commandos break in and rescue the tykes, though I guess for some of the third world kids, these working conditions were perhaps an improvement over local sweatshops. I sure hope that all they do is sing and make toys.Then, the scene abruptly changes to Hell where lots and lots of demons dance about like they are in a Busby Berkeley musical. This fun in put to a stop by Satan who orders one of them, Pitch, to go to Earth to ruin Christmas!! Personally, I thought this movie already did that! The Devil and his imps are actually kind of cute--like Hot Stuff from the Harvey Comics but with cool evil goatees! Or, if you are Puerto Rican, like a vejigante mask with a goatee! Somehow a poverty-stricken Mexican kid named Lupita, a group of jerky kids who want to mug Santa and some rich kid are key battlegrounds for the Devil and Santa!! So, if the Prince of Darkness (not Donald Trump, it's the OTHER Prince of Darkness) can somehow make her steal and be bad, he'll 'win'--what, we don't really know! In fact, as they root her on, you get the impression that the film makers intend Santa to be Jesus--as he has all these great powers AND fights the Devil over kids' souls! Later, Santa meets with his friend, Merlin. He asks him to make him a special powder that makes people dream nice dreams. Considering how much Santa laughs in the film (like a demented chipmunk), I assume he must use this drug A LOT! He immediately goes to see a blacksmith who makes him a magic key that opens ALL doors. Considering he keeps kids as his personal 'assistants', this magic key thing worries me immensely! During Santa's Christmas Eve ride, you see Lupita behave like a little angel--one problem down. Santa then takes time out now to take care of the rich kid whose parents are selfish jerks. He gives them some sort of crazy cocktail which magically solves their problems--two problems solved. This is a rare case where alcohol/drugs HELP kids and solves problems! And as for the little muggers, he gives them coal! Frustrated with his losses to Santa, Pitch then tries to steal the sleigh (which is pulled by creepy animatronic deer). When this fails, he destroys Santa's stash of 'magic powder'! As a result, Santa can't become invisible to avoid dogs and gets treed. Uh, oh...how can Santa take a detour to the Betty Ford Clinic if he's stuck up a tree?! Will St. Nick get down from the tree and get the monkey off his back or will the devils win? If you care, tune in and see. However, be warned that the film is bat-crap crazy! Technically speaking, the film is yecchy. While it is in color, it's really gaudy. The music is mostly done on an organ--which, along with bad singing from the kids, produces perhaps the worst soundtrack I've heard in recent memory. And the story is just incomprehensible and very, very, very creepy. Devils and a Santa that kidnaps kids is just plain creep-tastic. It's a film you should NEVER show to kids but makes a great film to watch with friends so you can laugh at it from start to finish!
| 0
|
train_24418
|
This seemed to be a good movie, I thought it would be a good movie, and throughout the movie I was hoping it would be a meaningful use of my time, and yes, I have to admit that the acting talent of Dimple Kapadia and Deepti Naval where truly commendable, but despite the best effort this movie falls short of effectively conveying a meaningful message, which it seems is it seemed was what Somnath Sen is trying to do. The final point comes short and the ending seemed kind of unsatisfactory after all that happens; a bit like real life in that respect but movies unlike real life ends in about 2hrs and the ending should leave the audience satisfied, if indeed that was the director's intention. This falls short in that respect and that is what disappoints me the most.Another aspect that concerned me was the national stereo-typing of the American characters - they all seem to be carved out of the same block. Seems to me that most American characters in Indian English movies are based upon how common Indians themselves perceive Americans to be like and it is clear that no effort has been made to bring any sense of depth or complexity to any American in the movie.These two aspects put together they make for a disappointing story.
| 0
|
train_4387
|
This is a strong movie from a historical and epic perspective. While the story is simple it is pure and straightforward. In truth, it is the standard story of a simple, honorable man whose honor comes into conflict with the more educated and wealthier men of the period.Poor vs. Rich, honorable vs. dishonorable, a classic but well-told tale without much of the glitz of hollywood stinking up the screen.Extra points just because you can almost smell the people on the screen. :)
| 1
|
train_21032
|
Songwriter Robert Taylor (as Terry) is "dizzy, slap-happy" and can't see straight over otherworldly Norma Shearer (as Consuelo). "She makes the sun shine, even when it's raining," Mr. Taylor explains. But, Mr. Taylor gets a lump in his throat whenever he gets near Ms. Shearer. Finally, at the Palm Beach casino Shearer frequents, Taylor proclaims "I love you!" Shearer brushes him off, as she is engaged to George Sanders (as Tony). However, to settle a gambling debt, Shearer hires Taylor to pose as "Her Cardboard Lover", to make Mr. Sanders jealous.This film's title invites the obvious and appropriate three-word review: "Her Cardboard Movie". It is most notable as the last film appearance for Shearer, one of the biggest stars in the world from "He Who Gets Slapped" (1924, playing another Consuelo) to "The Women" (1939). To be fair, this was likely the kind of Shearer film MGM believed audiences wanted to see. However, the part is unflattering.Plucked and powered, Taylor and Shearer were better off in "The Escape" (1940). If Shearer had continued, she might have become a better actress than "leading lady"; apparently, she was no longer interested, and certainly didn't need the money. Taylor has a great scene, reciting Christina Rossetti's "When I am Dead, My Dearest" while threatening to jump from Shearer's balcony, as directed by George Cukor.**** Her Cardboard Lover (6/42) George Cukor ~ Norma Shearer, Robert Taylor, George Sanders
| 0
|
train_4177
|
A delightful piece of cinema storytelling in a simple but effective way. Cinema after all is a visual media and Igor used its full potential. A young restless man boards a train with no destination in mind. In one of the compartments he meets with a girl. Words are not exchanged but their laundry washing are and from there we are taken on a ride with other peculiar characters and situations. The two leads are perfectly cast as their unique features tell you a story that needs no words.
| 1
|
train_4820
|
What more can be said? I have not been this fascinated with a young actress since Cate Blanchett burst upon the scene over ten years ago. And although both Blanchett and Blunt have played Queens now( seems to be the benchmark for up and coming actresses), the roles are complete polar opposites.Simply put if you are looking for high passion, compelling drama, and Machiavellian intrigue, this is not the movie for you. This isn't to say that the script or direction was bad, its just that the subject of the film did not lead too dramatic a life when compared to other notable royals like Elizabeth I, Anne Boylen, Henry VIII, Henry V, Henry II and Elainor of Acquitane. These are people whose lives were the stuff such as good soap operas are made of and whose policies and decisions altered the course of British ,and in most cases, world history. Victoria, in contrast, ascended the throne without incident, she quasi-governed a nation that was fast becoming a global power due to industrialization and the rise of the Navy, her State had a stable government led by competent and dynamic politicians, and she married young had a harmonious family life. The facts of her life are not the Sturm und Drag such as powerful dramas are made of.The heart of the film, aside from the attempt to dramatize her stultifying upbringing and the machinations surrounding her throne, is the story of the one thing that was truly shocking and surprising about her reign- a love story. Marriage made for financial or political reasons is with reason not necessarily the place to look for world shaking passion, yet Victoria will always be remembered in history as being sort of a Patron Saint marital fidelity, happiness and ideal family life. Thus, central to the film is the budding love of Victoria and her Prince Albert. I was very taken with Rupert Friend's characterization of Albert whom he portrayed as a kind, patient, somewhat earnest and maybe a touch naive young man, looking to" do good in the world and help". In short, he is a good man with a good heart, not the most dynamic figure to base a drama around, but as that is not the point of the story, that does not matter. The heart of the character shines through thanks to Friend's understated yet earnest performance. As for the Queen, well..Emily Blunt is sublime. Her beauty cannot be denied, but she is more than something pretty to look at; her face is like quicksilver because of her expressiveness. The slightest arch of the eyebrow, glance of the eye or slight wry smile delivers so much. Again, this is not a bombastic performance of heavy speeches and impassioned pleas, its not that kind of movie. But what Ms. Blunt does do with the role is show the simple humanity of the character with potent subtlety. For example, we see the joie de vivre that has been kept in check by Victoria's mother ( Miranda Richardson) and her scheming adviser/lover Conroy expressed in the simple things like Victoria trying to sketch her dog. We see her delight and fascination upon first meeting Albert by her eyes being continually drawn to him. We see her nervous and overwhelmed when addressing Parliament upon her Ascension. And my favorite scene of all in the film- we see her nervous, happy, and hopeful as she steels herself to do what really most women never have to do in their life- ask the man she loves to marry her, a proposition so ridiculous for those times( and some would say now) that Victoria bursts out in nervous laughter before she can even say "marry me". Again, this is not a movie for over the top larger than life expressions, but more a study in the subtleties of a character and making the little things say so much.So, overall, I judge the film by what it is and what it tried to do and as such I give it a 7. I felt that some of the politics could be better explained and that some very fine actors were wasted with little do and little character development, namely Miranda Richardson as the Duchess of Kent, and the characters of Conroy and Lord Peal. Again, the film need not have spent a large amount of time on those characters, but a little more exposition would have helped to explain the political environment. Also I would have loved to have seen more of the adjustment to married life between Victoria and Albert, but that may be just my greed for more scenes between Friend and Blunt. In summary, don't view this film in terms of a historical drama but for what it really is, a love story between two characters that happen to be historical figures. I give this film a solid 7 for wonderful lead performances, brilliant costumes and scenery and the magnificent Victoria of Emily Blunt. And anyone who has any shred of romance left in them, you will be touched by the end of this movie. God save the Queen.
| 1
|
train_5747
|
If you have any kind of heart and compassion for people, this is a tough movie to watch, at least in the second half of it. It's in that segment where we see nice little kid get beaten up and then a retarded (mentally- challenged) man go off the deep end after he witnesses this brutal act against the child. It's not pleasant material.However, it's a good movie and the acting is good, too. The story will sit with you awhile."Dominick" is the mentally-disabled guy and is played by Tom Hulce. I think this might be Hulce's best role ever. He's looked after by a med student, "Eugene," played by Ray Liotta, who became a star the following year with Kevin Costner's "Field Of Dreams."Dominick is a goodhearted garbage man who reads "Hulk" comic books and loves wrestling. He's the type of "slow" guy that you can't help but love and root for to live a happy life. When he freaks out, it's for several good reasons and...well, see the film for the whole story. It's worth your time but be prepared to go on real emotional roller coaster and possibly be very upset at some things you see.
| 1
|
train_20878
|
This movie is most possibly the worst movie I have ever see in my entire life! The plot is ridiculous and the whole "Little Man" crap is just so stupid. The entire movie is unrealistic and dumb. Let's face it, It's just a "Black Comedy". This is just a pointless horrible piece that should have never made it to theaters. The jokes are not funny and the acting is horrendous. Please, I beg of to you save your money than see this worthless piece of crap. I had to endure sitting through Little Man for an hour and a half wishing my eyes would bleed. I am disgusted that something like this would even be thought of! Who writes this crap? The actors have NO talent what so ever, how do these people get into Hollywood? They are making money off this junk!
| 0
|
train_4926
|
Elia Kazan, one of the best theater directors this country ever had, showed he was equally at home with movies. With "Panic in the Streets", Mr. Kazan gives us an early version of what would come later, with perhaps his master piece, "On the Waterfront", although both movies share only the water setting, for they are different visions about different subjects.Mr. Kazan shot on location in New Orleans. The adaptation by Daniel Fuchs of the Edna and Edward Anhalt stories that are the basis of the film, is remarkable in that it takes us to places that no tourist dared to see when visiting "The Big Easy". One of the big assets of this film is the magnificent black and white cinematography by Joseph MacDonald that shows New Orleans at its best. Also the music by Alfred Newman and the song by Billie Holiday gives the proceedings a nice touch.This film, could have been shot in New York, or another Northern big city because it presents us with characters that speak more like "broklynese" than maybe a Southern accent one might hear in that part of the country.One thing comes clear in the movie, Jack Palance, making his screen debut, smolders the screen every time one sees him. He was so intense! At the same time, this tough guy shows a tender side of him when he goes to see his sick partner, who unknown to him, is stricken with a fatal disease. Blackie, comforts this man caressing his sweaty face and running his hands through the dying man's greasy hair with abandon. Notable also, was the fact that Mr. Palance and Mr. Mostel appear to have been doing their own stunts, something so refreshing because both actors make it seem real.The film also presents a normal side with the introduction of the Reed family at the beginning of the film. We see a family man painting furniture with his young son. Later he and the wife discuss how it appears they can't make ends meet with his salary, something that many families have to deal with on a daily basis. Richard Widmark, playing a normal person is not as effective as when this actor plays more cunning and intense people. Barbara Bel Geddes, as the wife, sounds as though she's a suburban woman from Connecticut.The film is enjoyable thanks to Mr. Kazan's direction and the excellent cast working in the movie.
| 1
|
train_8096
|
First of all, the only reason people keep bitching about this film is because they can't stand a few parts of the true story being "altered". Well guess what? Peter Jackson's film wasn't a perfect rendition either. Well enough ranting. This is a very beautiful film. The backgrounds are gorgeous and taken from well known Tolkein artists. The film covers about half the trilogy (Fellowship of the Ring and up to the battle of Helms Deep in the Two Towers) and moves at a good pace. The voice casting is top notch and the most of the characters look like I imagined they would. Samwise is a bit too ugly for my tastes, but Aragorn looks AWESOME. The film has a great score that completely supports the movie. If you enjoy good fantasy stories but hate reading (the books are even better) give this movie a try, keeping in mind it was made 20 odd years ago.Also of particular note: Peter Jackson's adaption of Fellowship follows almost exactly the same strand as Ralph Bakshi's (Jackson has said many times how much he admired Bakshi's effort).
| 1
|
train_11845
|
I really dislike both Shrek films. (Since their both "PG" and have words in them I would never say myself, so I disliked them.)But when it comes to "Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron," which I just barely watched for the first time last month, I became a fan of animated films, other than Pixar. ***Spoilers ahead*** In "Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron," a horse foal is born and eventually becomes the leader of his heard. One night, he sees a strange light in the distance, and he sets off toward it. This action eventually leads to his capture, and several more things. Throughout the movie, we hear a narration. It's through the thoughts of Spirit, though the horses never talk. This is what makes the movie so goo. They (the movie makers) recored real horses to do the sounds the horses made; none of those sounds were made by humans.Spirit meets Rain, a beautiful mare, and Little Creek, a native-American, who owns Rain. Little Creek later frees Spirit and Rain, they go running home.I have never been a big fan of Brian Adams, but I intend to buy the soundtrack to this film in the near future. Watch this film, and you won't regret it. My Score: 10/10
| 1
|
train_13219
|
This film, though ostensibly a comedy, is deadly serious. Its subject is Imperialism (with a capital I): how Britain, foolishly, humiliatingly, tries to convince itself that it's still a great power after World War II. At home, the Empire is run by amiable dolts, benevolent Tories who are so in-bred that they can't distinguish close relatives; the Offices of Government consist of long forgotten archives (a dig at Orwellian paranoia?), inhabited by indolent rats, and ante-rooms wherein lounge bored synacures, reading popular novels.Abroad, Britain clings to the old pomp; but pomp out of context looks threadbare and silly, especially when its embodied in bumbling twits. Carlton-Browne is an unsentimental picture of decline, with none of the lachrymose rot that marred the supposedly anti-imperialist Jewel in the Crown.The film is also about the Cold War, bravely admitting that it's a dangerous farce, whose participants deserve mockery and contempt, not fear and respect. It's about how colonialism, characterised more by neglect than tyranny, destroys the colonies it deserts, robbing them of amenities, power, and, most importantly, self-respect, leaving them vulnerable to the machinations of dangerous cowboys.It's the seriousness, of course, that kills it. That's not to say that weighty subjects can't be treated in comedy - The Miracle Of Morgan's Creek, Dr. Strangelove and The Life Of Brian have all proved that. Indeed, one might suggest that serious themes should only be treated by comedy - it allows for a clearer-eyed view.The problem with Carlton-Browne is that every situation must have a significance beyond the merely comic, so that it becomes weighed down and unfunny. In the three films mentioned above, much of the comedy arises from character reaction to an extreme situation, not the extreme situation itself. Here, the script is too poor to sustain rich comic characterisations, and some of the greatest comedy talent ever assembled - Peter Sellers, Terry-Thomas, Raymond Huntley and John le Mesurier - are criminally wasted.Terry-Thomas, sublime so often, shows that he couldn't handle lead parts, and that he needed to play sneering, arrogant bounders, not brainless toffs. The music is made to carry much of the comedy, but its heavy irony only draws attention to the lack of hilarity on screen. (To be fair, unlike the majority of British comedies of the period, which were stagy and underproduced, the Boultings often try to make their points through film itself, by montage and composition) Only Huntley manages to raise genuine laughs, and that's by essaying a character he could have played in his sleep.None of the Boultings' farces have dated well - they're never thought through enough. Although Carlton-Browne revels in the decline of the Empire, it also seems to be anti-democratic and militaristic. I'm sure this wasn't intended, but these blunders are bound to happen if you allow worthy intentions to take precedence over comic intelligence and film form.
| 0
|
train_11367
|
Caution: May contain spoilers...I've seen this movie 3 times & I've liked it every time. Upon seeing it again, I'm always reminded of how good it is. An HBO TV movie- very well done like most of their movies are- this would've gotten Oscars for it's performances had it been released for general distribution instead of made for TV.As I'm sure anyone knows from reading other reviews here, this is the story of serial murderer, Andrei Chikatilo. He murdered 56 people over 8 years in the former Soviet Union. (3 victims were buried & couldn't be found so he was only convicted of 52 out of 53 of his murders.) The story actually focuses more on the forensic analyst, Victor Burakov played to perfection by Stephen Rea. A man that becomes tortured and obsessed with finding this killer despite the additional obstacles placed by party hacks, his part is essential to be sure. There is a very touching scene towards the end of the movie that mentions how in America, investigators are routinely taken off serial killer cases after 18 months whether they want to or not due to the mental strain & frustration. According to this acct, Burakov worked for over 5 years before getting his first break from it. He followed the case to its conclusion, 3 years later. In this scene, his superior, General Fetisov, played by Donald Sutherland, actually tells him he admires his dedication and apologizes for not knowing he should've given him a break sooner.Rea's performance is so well done, he doesn't overact, chew up the scenery or do anything that distracts from his portrayal of a man who is hell bent on finding his killer. He is a man with passion, but doesn't show it in the same manner as is so usually portrayed in detective movies. He only occasionally gives outbursts after quietly putting up with more than most could stand under such circumstances. Rea does so much with his face, his eyes, he doesn't need to overact. He just *is* - His character, so frustrated after so long, at one point, driven to frustration, he actually says he'd rather find 3 at one time than none in a year. Of course what he means is not that he wants more people to die, he just wants some clues to catch this man. Rea makes us feel for this man. He makes us understand but a glimpse of what it is to live with such horror and futility.A mutant to be sure, Chikatilo's childhood was one which produces such "monsters." The character of Chikatilo is very well done by Jeffrey DeMunn. He somehow (impossible though it may seem) elicits some modicum of sympathy for himself. Perhaps he is the worst of us gone terribly wrong? Either way, his performance is very well done.Donald Sutherland as Colonel Fetisov (later promoted to General) also does a great job. He starts out seeming to be a cynical worldly official that doesn't seem much more interested in helping the investigation than anyone else blocking Burakov. But he eventually becomes more than just an assistant, he actually actively participates in helping Burakov. There is also a very nice turn by Max Von Sydow as the psychiatrist brought in to help profile and figure out what kind of deviant they are looking for.Although this movie deals with a morbid, grotesque and violent story, it really is more about what it takes to catch a killer than the killer himself. All around a very well done movie with fine performances and a great screenplay. The screenplay manages to do what the best of this type of movie does: give factual events & place them meaningfully inside a dramatic framework that makes you feel like you know the people *behind* the facts.9 out of 10 stars
| 1
|
train_15995
|
I watched an episode. Yes I sat through the entire miserable experience, and I have to say, this brand of comedy is one of the worst you will get. Imagine Peter Griffin, of Family Guy fame. Now imagine Peter Griffin as a(admittedly slim and minus the glasses) woman, except that he now lacks the something that made him hilarious. Peter Griffin is an idiot, but he doesn't know he's an idiot. Sarah has none of the genuine character, none of the acting ability to pull her character off. Maybe its the trite, formulaic jokes that pull her comedy even lower than her character can take it by herself. Maybe it's the lack of believable foils. Her insensitive, bigoted persona may appeal to insensitive, bigoted people unlike the mass appeal that Stephen Colbert's insensitive, bigoted character has. Like Bill O'Reilly, Sarah creates an annoying, unfunny character. She lacks something that is necessary for the genre of satire, let alone for the entire world of comedy. What Sarah Silverman lacks, its noticeable. And when you don't believe it and identify with it, it's not funny anymore.
| 0
|
train_8463
|
Mobile Suit Gundam Wing is the Fourth series in the continuing Gundam chronicles. Unlike the previous entries which focused on massive wars, this one is a little different; instead of having an army-vs.-army situation, this one is led by five teenage boys (due to their ability to blend in more readily than normal adults) and their machines called "Gundams" because of the metal alloy used in their construction. Which leads to problems, since gundams are supposed to be destroyed, replaced by "Mobile Suits", which are piloted less-destructive weapon platforms and "Dolls" which are ran on A.I. and are used as grunt infantry.The whole point of the series is a metaphysical question that gives Gundam Wing an edge over a greater portion of the Anime that makes it's way here. Especially since most anime is adapted from popular magazines, such as Naruto, DragonBall, One Piece, DragonBall Z and InuYasha which are all from Shonen Jump, which is now available in America.Mobile Suit Gundam Wing sets itself apart from most anime in the fact that instead of over-the-top battles between mortals who more resemble gods, Gundam is very humanistic and seems to revel in the fact that it is dramatic instead of melodramatic and events seem to unfold across the series gracefully. Normally in anime there are more than few series that think that the best way to go about having a "small" battle is to have it take a half-hour - something that would never happen in real life. Gundam tops this by making sure that everyone knows that characters will die, machines will be destroyed and rebuilt, battles will be lost and won, and it never seems as though it makes the actions themselves satirical.But the magic of Gundam Wing is in the details, and what this series has that more anime would be grateful for having. Emotion. Instead of mythic prophecies, magic, or overblown martial arts, Gundam Wing is hard-line science fiction from a country that hates hard-line science fiction. (NOTE: The author would like to state that Neon Genesis Evangelion is not hard-line-plausible-in-real-life science fiction due to the religious subject matter that is the core of its series) they love Star Wars, but hate A.I. (the movie). Henceforth why Gundam Wing was and Gundam SeeD is now in production for both Japanese and U.S. releases at the same time with two voice teams. American audiences only have to wait two or three weeks after the end of the Japanese season to catch the dubbed or subtitled versions or even the edited SeeD episodes that air on Cartoon Network.The emotion is that these two sides that are fighting a war are technically backwards. The heroes are those who defend the rights of the more wealthy and aristocratic citizens of Earth from the band of terrorists bent on victory at any and all costs that make up the protagonists of Mobile Suit Gundam Wing. This is not war, this is "total war". Every person, every building, every street is a target for attack, both on Earth and off.My only complaint, and the reason it didn't get the score of ten, is that at about three-fourths of the way through, it just kind of goes dead for a few episodes, and no one really seems to change. Kind of like a present-time flashback, which is fine due to what it reveals about the characters, but at the same time it drags down what should be the brewing between Project: Meteor and OZ. But the final two episodes and the overplayed-on-Cartoon-Network (back in 2001-2003) Mobile Suit Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz movie more than make up for the slack.
| 1
|
train_21890
|
The number of goofs in this episode was higher than the first 9. They don't follow their own rules about spirits where destruction of the body makes the spirit dissolve. This one dropped a second body. That body, and Dean, drop about 20 feet from Sam but then they are right with Sam. Flashlights go out in an unlighted asylum, at night, and we can still see everything. It's night but light is streaming through the windows. A ghost that died in 1960's is making cell phones calls? Come on! There is no way Sam could get a psychiatrist to see him in the same day he makes an appointment and the doctor talks to Sam like it wasn't his first visit. Sam and Dean knew there were other bodies in the asylum and innocent spirits still lurking and didn't do anything to help them. That doesn't seem like a thing the Winchester boys would do. Oh and after crawling around on a dirt filled mattress and all around a nasty asylum the girls' makeup and hair is perfect and not a smudge on her white shirt. While the implementation of this episode had problems the premise was good and a few times I was not creeped out but nervous as Dean sat reading Elicots' journal. I just knew that an object so intensely personal to the ghost would draw it to the person violating it's sanctity. Elicot didn't appear. Maybe that is a fault for such an important object or place (like Elicot's office) should draw the spirit when a living being touches or enters. When they separate I want to scream... 'that's how you die! Always stay together and watch each others backs!' but they don't listen to me :o The Elicot spirit and his special ability was a very nice touch. It's prime-time show but I do wish the horror of Elicot strapping one of his victims down and using anticipation of torture to creep us out further.Especially because of the lighting goofs I gave this a 4. Sudden darkness or the flickering of the whole scene's lighting as the flashlight flickers is all that more terrifying. The lighter coming or the flashlight reviving and instantly a spirit is in their face is shocking. I understand the directors wants us to see his scene but then make a mention or obvious connection by Elicot touching an electric socket and the lights coming on. Have the characters respond to the fact an asylum with no power suddenly has lights in the one room. Blue white lights flickering as electric arcs just like Elicot's finger power. Seriously, MCG could have done better.
| 0
|
train_24161
|
Basically this is an overlong, unfunny, action/comedy. First of all I'd like to say that I did enjoy the Wayans brother Scary Movie (1) and the sequel had it's moments. Unfortunately white chicks doesn't even deliver HALF the laughs. The humour in it is absolutely crude. If you like burping, farting, stupid catchphrases you should probably look at this. When it isn't crude it's idiotic. The first 10 minutes of the film gave everything away to me, totally unfunny, simply idiotic. However I watched the whole thing since I was with a friend (otherwise I wouldn't have bothered). The story is undeniably thin, it was in scary movie too but there at least the laughs were quick and constant. I think this is probably one of the main problems too with this film, the laughs don't come quick enough. Some jokes are dragged out too long when they're more disgusting than funny in the first place. If you prefer your comedy with a few brain cells then just avoid this. If you want a silly comedy with more laughs then look at scary movie, airplane, hotshots 1 + 2. 1/10 Completely unfunny, Thin storyline, A film that seems to be based on one idea (i.e. what if we dressed up as white chicks for a film?) but simply didn't have enough material.
| 0
|
train_13213
|
Can I please say first of all, that I felt so strongly about this movie that I signed up to IMDb specifically to review it. And my review? This is easily the worst movie I have ever seen.The synopsis of the movie sounded interesting- Nazis, occult, time travel, etc., but the movies plot failed to properly bring all these elements together. Remember the episode of South Park that featured manatees writing Family Guy using 'idea balls'? Did these manatees also write Unholy? Its like the writer wanted to include all these different ideas, but had no idea how to link them all together, and then to make things make even less sense, included a Donnie Darko-esquire time travel theme to the ending, messing up the chronology.I could tell from early on that this was a bad movie. Special effects were too low budget for anything better than straight to DVD. The acting wasn't great, but in fairness I've seen worse. I will praise the Nazi paintings, they were creepy, but the evil Nazi butcher guy was just comic.I don't have a vendetta against this movie or anything, but to be honest, I'm not even into the horror genre. But this movie cannot be described as a thriller or a drama. If this story had been well told, this would have been a good movie. But it has been over hyped. Waaaaay over hyped.
| 0
|
train_21685
|
WOW! i didn't know that someone would make this movie! its awful! I have written down 5 things that can tell why u do not want to see this movie.number 1: "its the biggest rave ever" where is the that rave? i could only see a few people dancing around.. 2. when they are on the rave,they can ONLY see blood everywhere,no people,two ruined tents and one stage.. and what do they do!? they drink!3.the worst actors i have ever seen! the captain and his crew.. awful! 4. when one of the people is firing an ordinary gun, he shoots almost 30 times without reloading! 5. i didn't knew every person in the world could fight as a pro! must be a new thing..i wonder what the producer was thinking! "this is going to be a big hit, its gonna be a classic" .. sure u dumb s**t anyway don't see this movie, its a waist of time. MY EYES ARE STILL BLEEDING!
| 0
|
train_7109
|
First off, let's start with the negative points: 1) There are HUGE, gaping wholes in the story line and questions that are raised that will get no where near being answered; 2) The movie is not for all people, so impolite viewers will get restless and start yapping during the movie.Point two above is important because the movie is very quiet. In an older type theater (like the one I went to), you can hear the reel going through the projector at times. I loved that. The movie does not keep you busy with music, nor effects: it lets you reflect upon what is happening.There is a lack of rhythm that generates an atmosphere that is fascinating an utterly enjoyable. The same kind of atmosphere generated by Stanley Kubrick in Eyes Wide Shut. Not for all people.I would highly recommend it to fans of cinema, as the cinematographic work is amazing. Those that base their appreciation of a movie solely on the story will be utterly disappointed. It's the kind of story that you have to make up the links in your mind afterwards. (My version of it is pretty darn cool, but probably quite off-track!) If you do go catch the movie, there is one very cool part: when the two cops are talking to each other on their cell phones. An ultra-cool sound effect that really puts you in the moment. Hats off to the person that thought of doing this.
| 1
|
train_18372
|
I saw this for Gary Busey and Fred Williamson thinking they were buddy cops. They are but Busey is in the opening scene then doesn't show up again until like 40 minutes into the movie. Though every scene he's in is awesome. Especially when he disguises himself as a blind hobo.What's incredible about this movie is the plot. In the movie Fred Williamson is trying to find out who stalking and killing phone sex operators. At one point I think thats its Busey. But it turns out I'm only partly right. Busey is not the killer, but he is calling up and harassing the women over the phone. Why? I don't know. In no way is he connected to the killer, he just does it for kicks I guess.
| 0
|
train_22455
|
The entire thing is very beautiful to look at..the European location shooting was a good idea. The lead actors are attractive. The score is servicable.BUT THEN THEY SPOKE! And the non-plot developed! And it was all downhill from there. Pacino is sleepwalking and Keller keeps talking about how bored she is..hello, dear, you're not alone. When he does a Mae West imitation, you might have to hide your face, its that painful to watch.I can't imagine how either actor or director Sydney Pollack got involved with this, or a better question, why it ended up stinking so bad?Since death is represented in almost every scene, one way or another, maybe you're supposed to have low enjoyment here. Maybe its supposed to feel as empty and cold as death. But I still can't recommend it.
| 0
|
train_8546
|
This is one of the funniest and most excellent movies ever made! Although I've only seen forty minuets of it and I must say this is a good movie. The plot if funny and because there's sex around pretty much every corner of this movie. It's really funny and I don't see how anyone could NOT like this film. I really really really want to watch the rest of the movie. It has one slightly sick scene in it (trust me, it's not very pleasant) but apart from that this is a great movie. I rate this movie an 7/8 for comedy, 10/10 for sexual content and 10/10 for the plot. PLease if your a fan of American Pie and you want to watch a movie where there's pretty much all sex in it the buy this movie. It WILL please you.10/10
| 1
|
train_21880
|
The last couple of weeks in the life of a dead vagabond woman is told in flashbacks. Like the vagabond, the film wanders aimlessly and rather pointlessly. Mona, the lazy, sullen, and drug-addicted title character, is not likable and Bonnaire does little to make her interesting. Although there is some pretentious dialog attempting to explain why Mona has chosen this miserable lifestyle, her motivations are never really clear. The episodic nature of the film, involving some random characters, becomes tiresome after a while, making it seem much longer than its running time. It is also hard to believe that an attractive young homeless woman would not draw more attention from men.
| 0
|
train_15896
|
this movie is the worst ive seen.. nicole kidman really dissapointed me.. this movie has nothing. i would not watch it again even if it were the last movie on earth. great actors but bad script.
| 0
|
train_24097
|
I will stat of with the plot Alice, having survived the previous instalment of the Nightmare series, finds the deadly dreams of Freddy Krueger starting once again. This time, the taunting murderer is striking through the sleeping mind of Alice's unborn child. His intention is to be "born again" into the real world. The only one who can stop Freddy is his dead mother, but can Alice free her spirit in time to save her own son? This movie did start of really well as we see Alice dreaming of being Amanda Kruger who get stuck in room and get raped by 100 Manics then she being rushed to hospital but then she not longer the pregnant lady but then she Amanda giving birth to Freddy again.Alice and Dan are the only two people to return from the 4th movie and then have gotten some new Friends its' no long before Freddy start to kill again, I did like the first dead it okay, not as good as the other deaths or dreams.Freddy himself didn't seem to be Scary in this movie at all, the nightmare were just boring really they were not scary or creepy at all.Acting in movies was okay for a 5th movie in the series but overall I think this movie was really Dull. (Still not worst movie of the series, Freddy Dead is the worst)4/10
| 0
|
train_14968
|
This wasn't all that great. Not terrible or hateful or anything, just forgettable.It had a sort of, um, hesitant, diluted air, like it never properly knew whether it wanted to go for laughs or for sweetness or for satire. So we were left with weak mix of the three. The actors seemed kinda lost.Also, the ideas were really tired and recycled, almost zombified themselves. How many more times do we have to be told the 50's in the States were infected with a banal sense of conformity? And that this was perpetuated by aggressive consumerism? And that emotional repression in men is a baaaaad thing? Old hat.Its biggest crime in my eyes though was just how detached from reality it was. I know it was a comedy and all, but - especially in a full movie where you must keep the interest of an audience for a prolonged period - you still need some sort of emotional anchor, some relatable guide through the story, to make it engaging. For the 'hero' kid to watch an old woman, two fellow school pupils and ultimately his father die painfully at the hands of zombies or whatever and for him to greet it all with a cheery smile and a shrug of the shoulders, then I just struggle to deal with that in any sort of positive way. The mum was the same. If you make your two main characters so inhuman on that level, then you risk losing me and that's what happened.Biggest positive I can offer is that I love the look of that sort of apple pie suburbia and this captured it well enough, it was a handsome film, especially some of those wide angled shots of the street and inside the Robinsons' house. Also, the opening newsreel was cute, in a been-done-before-but-still-funny sort of way.And I thought Billy Connolly was OK and that comes from someone who isn't a big fan of Billy Connolly: Movie Star. I just had this fear he was going to be hamming it up and trying to steal every scene, but he played it pretty low-key for him and probably came out the most sympathetic character in the whole film.All in all, not great though.
| 0
|
train_12610
|
I have this film out of the library right now and I haven't finished watching it. It is so bad I am in disbelief. Audrey Hepburn had totally lost her talent by then, although she'd pretty much finished with it in 'Robin and Marian.' This is the worst thing about this appallingly stupid film. It's really only of interest because it was her last feature film and because of the Dorothy Stratten appearance just prior to her homicide.There is nothing but idiocy between Gazzara and his cronies. Little signals and little bows and nods to real screwball comedy of which this is the faintest, palest shadow.Who could believe that there are even some of the same Manhattan environs that Hepburn inhabited so magically and even mythically in 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' twenty years earlier? The soundtrack of old Sinatra songs and the Gershwin song from which the title is taken is too loud and obvious--you sure don't have to wait for the credits to find out that something was subtly woven into the cine-musique of the picture to know when the songs blasted out at you.'Reverting to type' means going back up as well as going back down, I guess. In this case, Audrey Hepburn's chic European lady is all you see of someone who was formerly occasionally an actress and always a star. Here she has even lost her talent as a star. If someone whose talent was continuing to grow in the period, like Ann-Margret, had played the role, there would have been some life in it, even given the unbelievably bad material and Mongoloid-level situations.Hepburn was a great person, of course, greater than most movie stars ever dreamed of being, and she was once one of the most charming and beautiful of film actors. After this dreadful performance, she went on to make an atrocious TV movie with Robert Wagner called 'Love Among Thieves.' In 'They all Laughed' it is as though she were still playing an ingenue in her 50's. Even much vainer and obviously less intelligent actresses who insisted upon doing this like Lana Turner were infinitely more effective than is Hepburn. Turner took acting seriously even when she was bad. Hepburn doesn't take it seriously at all, couldn't be bothered with it; even her hair and clothes look tacky. Her last really good work was in 'Two for the Road,' perhaps her most perfect, if possibly not her best in many ways.And that girl who plays the country singer is just sickening. John Ritter is horrible, there is simply nothing to recommend this film except to see Dorothy Stratten, who was truly pretty. Otherwise, critic David Thomson's oft-used phrase 'losing his/her talent' never has made more sense.Ben Gazarra had lost all sex appeal by then, and so we have 2 films with Gazarra and Hepburn--who could ask for anything less? Sandra Dee's last, pitiful film 'Lost,' from 2 years later, a low-budget nothing, had more to it than this. At least Ms. Dee spoke in her own voice; by 1981, Audrey Hepburn's accent just sounded silly; she'd go on to do the PBS 'Gardens of the World with Audrey Hepburn' and there her somewhat irritating accent works as she walks through English gardens with aristocrats or waxes effusively about 'what I like most is when flowers go back to nature!' as in naturalized daffodils, but in an actual fictional movie, she just sounds ridiculous.To think that 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' was such a profound sort of light poetic thing with Audrey Hepburn one of the most beautiful women in the world--she was surely one of the most beautiful screen presences in 'My Fair Lady', matching Garbo in several things and Delphine Seyrig in 'Last Year at Marienbad.' And then this! And her final brief role as the angel 'Hap' in the Spielberg film 'Always' was just more of the lady stuff--corny, witless and stifling.I went to her memorial service at the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, a beautiful service which included a boys' choir singing the Shaker hymn 'Simple Gifts.' The only thing not listed in the program was the sudden playing of Hepburn's singing 'Moon River' on the fire escape in 'Breakfast at Tiffany's,' and this brought much emotion and some real tears out in the congregation.A great lady who was once a fine actress (as in 'The Nun's Story') and one of the greatest and most beautiful of film stars in many movies of the 50's and 60's who became a truly bad one--that's not all that common. And perhaps it is only a great human being who, in making such things as film performances trivial, nevertheless has the largeness of mind to want to have the flaws pointed out mercilessly--which all of her late film work contained in abundance. Most of the talk about Hepburn's miscasting is about 'My Fair Lady.' But the one that should have had the original actress in it was 'Wait Until Dark,' which had starred Lee Remick on Broadway. Never as celebrated as Hepburn, she was a better actress in many ways (Hepburn was completely incapable of playing anything really sordid), although Hepburn was at least adequate enough in that part. After that, all of her acting went downhill.
| 0
|
train_1543
|
I remember seeing this film years ago on, I think, BBC2. I would very much like to view it again - does anyone know how I can obtain a copy? As I remember, it was an especially powerful movie, in particular the scene that stands out is of the horses wearing gas masks. Apart from that I really can't recall too much about the story - which is why I want to view it again! I have trawled the web but am unable to find a copy, which is unusual in my experience - perhaps there is no DVD or VHS of this film on the market. Would appreciate any help anyone can give me on this. Thanks very much in advance for your assistance. Best regards, Albany234@googlemail.com
| 1
|
train_5851
|
*SPOILERS*This is only the second pay-per-view I've given a perfect 10, the first being the 1991 Royal Rumble. It was full of exciting matches that weren't memorable, just disposable fun. And that's why I love it.The opening match between Razor and DiBiase, as well as Ludvig Borga vs. Marty Jannetty were the only low points. They were OK matches, but DiBiase deserved better in his final pay per view match. These days, a match like this would have run-ins and a bigger climax for Razor's first major babyface push. And Jannetty, fresh off a Intercontinental title run, could have had a better match with Borga. But I don't think anyone really cared. They just needed a Borga push on pay per view television.IRS and The Kid were great, as were Michaels and Perfect. I wish Perfect could have won, but Michaels lies down for no one. Notice how right after this, he left the WWF so he wouldn't have to job to Razor. Bret Hart had two great brawls with Doink (notice how everyone's best match is against the Hit-man) and then Lawler. Their rivalry was a classic; that's why that year's Feud of the Year was a no-brainer. How often do you see two legends win Feud of the Year this late in their careers?The Steiners-Heavenly Bodies match was one of the best of the year. Who knew the Bodies could hold their own against one of the best teams ever?Many say that the Undertaker-Giant Gonzalez match was a waste of time. But I loved it. Remember, what made the old WWF (as in, pre-WWE) great was the mix of athleticism and freak show. Is there a soul out there who didn't like Akeem?The main event wasn't bad, although nowhere near match of the year status. They put Lex Luger over well, but made a wise choice in having Yokozuna keep the belt. He was the first heel since Superstar Graham to hold the belt for more than two months. Nowadays, heels are champions all the time. But from the beginning of the WWWF through the WWF of the 90s, if you blinked, you missed a heel title reign.As an old school wrestling fan, this one and SummerSlam '88 are my favorites.
| 1
|
train_2750
|
This is the kind of movie the US doesn't make. It's why people rent foreign films. It's a great story about how one person, even if he is retarded can make a person find reason in an empty life. Everybody can learn from Georges. It also shows how people that are mentally challenged suffer in their life and shows them in a very realistic way (I think). As its classic in foreign films this movie has a bittersweet ending, but that only makes it a better movie.
| 1
|
train_8606
|
It appears that there's no middle ground on this movie! Most of it takes place in a dream and, like most dreams, it's often foolish and illogical. It's also a gorgeous production with some great songs and fine performances, especially by our angel.Jeanette's deadpan, unknowing insults and various other faux pas at the dream reception are hilarious, and her jitterbug with Binnie Barnes is a surprise and a delight. At one point, she gets to sing a snippet from Carmen, followed by the final trio of Faust (holding a lapdog, for some strange reason), then "Aloha Oe" on the beach! It's a surreal comedy--tremendously entertaining if you can get into the groove.
| 1
|
train_17385
|
I should have listened. I was warned, and still, I paid money for this, after reading all the reviews, after knowing the original is "so bad it's good", and that part 2 does not fit into that category at all, still, even then, I couldn't resist. Exactly what happened here? Part one was Hilarious, it had so much politically incorrectness, and other Crazy, Fat Entertainment, and this one, there just couldn't possibly be a worse sequel on God's green earth, not Basket Case 2, hell, not even Troll 2. This is truly the worst sequel in history and that's really saying something considering the groundbreaking, bottom of the barrel qualities of the original. Criminally Insane part 2 was just a completely different brand of bad. Shot on Video, zero score, zero entertainment value, 1/3 consists of flashbacks of the original, and on top of all that, crazy, fat Ethel has lost a portion of her girth. I mean, honestly, is this some kind of sick joke?!? Thank's a lot, Nick Milliard. 1/1
| 0
|
train_12124
|
This 1934 adaptation of Somerset Maugham's novel put Bette Davis on the map as a movie actress. She might have won an Academy Award for her performance but the films was made on loan, so her studio didn't push for her. Her acting in this one doesn't come off well by today's standards. As the heartless waitress who jerks Philip, a sensitive medical student, around and nearly ruins his life, Davis is way too shrill, almost demonic. Director John Cromwell, who usually elicited good performances from his actresses, was perhaps overwhelmed by this one. Davis is watchable, for sure, but so strident and predatory as to seem scarcely human. I imagine the character of Millie as quieter, less feminine than Davis, with maybe a touch of the tomboy. Davis is such a strong, immediate presence that's there's no air of mystery to her, which makes Philip's attraction to her seem more overtly masochistic than it should be.As Philip, Leslie Howard is excellent. His wan, somewhat wilted good looks are perfect for this failed aesthete. Nor does he impose a personal interpretation on the part, as, say, Dirk Bogarde might have done, which gives his work a rare clarity. He seems completely in control here, as he should be, playing a man with a rational intellect who is in the grip of irrational emotions he cannot manage or even fully satisfy, as the object of his affections moves him in ways he cannot understand. Howard was a fine actor, too often cast in standard romantic parts which compelled him to fall back on charm, which he doesn't use here.It's been so long since I've read the book I don't feel comfortable commenting on the movie's faithfulness to it. I think it captures the spirit of the story well enough, and that it has in Howard a perfect Philip Carey. The sexual undercurrents are muted, and at times Philip behaves so masochistically that in the absence of strong sex feelings makes one wonder about the character's sanity, surely not Mr. Maugham's intention. Thanks to Howard's performance, Philip remains firmly in focus, as one can see in his various responses to and yearnings for Millie the extremes to which a reasonable intellect will go to understand the irrational, in himself and in others. Overall, a very good film, a little stilted at times, due to its age, it evokes London nicely, and is well acted for the most part.
| 1
|
train_9051
|
I was watching this when my wife called to inquire from the other room as to my choice of fare. My comment? "I am watching my Life!"Though younger, but only by 5 years or so, than the "Rocket Boys" I remember the absolute urgency with which Sputnick was greeted by our administrators of education and how the whole Science Fair thing gained momentum and took me and others into the competitive whirlwind. My own tornado landed me in my own State's Science Fair, in Physics by '62, though our group was less successful in gaining the support of, for example, firefighters we approached for guidance and counsel until after a tragic event, our city went so far as to allow us to tour the Nike missile site on Chicago's lakeshore.This movie brought it all back for me and I will bet that it brought it all back for a bunch of us "UberNerds" of the late '50s and early 60's.We are in a similar science brain drainage period now and really need this movie as a country. See It!
| 1
|
train_4470
|
Similar to "On the Town," this musical about sailors on shore leave falls short of the later classic in terms of pacing and the quality of the songs, but it has its own charms. Kelly has three fabulous dance routines: one with Jerry the cartoon mouse of "Tom and Jerry" fame, one with a little girl, and a fantasy sequence where he is a Spanish lover determined to reach his lady on a high balcony. Sinatra, playing Kelly's shy, inexperienced buddy, and Grayson, the woman who serves as the love interest for both men, do most of the singing. Iturbi provides some fine piano playing. At nearly two and half hours, it is a bit too long for a light musical but it doesn't drag.
| 1
|
train_10199
|
As a kid, I loved this game. I played it a zillion times during Spring 1993 with my friend Andrew. I used to play Axel or Blaze and he would be Adam and no matter how often we played it we never seemed to get bored. Then Streets of Rage 2 came out. And we quickly forgot that this one even existed.You play as ex-cops Axel Stone, Adam or Blaze Fielding, who have quit the force in order to take on the bad guys in their own way. There are 8 levels to work thru in a run-down and corrupt city led by the evil Mr X. Beating up all the bad guys and the end-of-level boss is much fun. Level 4 (The Bridge) was my fave because you could chuck baddies down the holes into the river. You even have the chance to become Mr. X's right hand man at the end of the game (at a price). This leads to the 'bad ending' in which you become the the boss of the syndicate. Exactly how this is possible is a mystery since you destroy the syndicate on your way to Mr. X, but never mind.Streets of Rage also has truly fantastic music. The composer Yuzo Koshiro did absolute miracles with the limited technology of the Sega Genesis. The main theme, Level One, Level 4 and Final Boss are standout tunes. As a Wii owner I am proud to have this forever on my console. But with Streets of Rage 2 also available, it does kind of render the first one somewhat obsolete.Pros:Average graphics but nice backgrounds represented in a comic-book like panel progression that fits the tone of the game.Great tunes.Easy to get into and hard to put down.Cons:Vastly inferior to the infinitely more complex Streets of Rage 2.Poor enemy AI. Baddies often walk away from you instead of engaging in combat. This is especially infuriating with the Level 5 boss.Lack of combo moves.Lack of decent weapons.Bad guy models are repeated far too often.Graphics B- Sound A- Gameplay B- Lasting Appeal B-
| 1
|
train_14346
|
Well, I like to be honest with all the audiences that I bought it because of Kira's sex scenes, but unfortunately I did not see much of them. All sex scenes were short and done in haphazard manner along with all the weird and corny background music just like all other B movies - it just doesn't look much like two people having sex. There is a tiny bit of plot toward the end - Kira's new lover is a killer. Whoa!!! how shocking!!! Why don't we nominate this movie for Oscar Award? I can't imagine how bad the movie would look like if it were R-rated (Mine is imported from UK, rated 18). Conclusion? Put it down and walk away, so yon won't end up with being a moron like me.Score: 2/10
| 0
|
train_10927
|
This is one of my favourite kung-fu films and is regarded as one the most popular Shaw Brothers from the late 70's. The plot is interesting and twisty, the characters are cool each with their own style - toad, snake, lizard etc. The action is limited in comparison with other Chang Cheh / Venoms films but what is there is interesting with different kung-fu styles on display from the various characters. I recommend this film to those who think all Shaw Brothers especially Chang Cheh's films are the same, most of his films usually focus on the 10 tigers and Shaolin vs Manchu conflicts. This film is breath of fresh air in comparison.
| 1
|
train_19273
|
One of the most common entries in the 'goofs' category is anachronism. Though I'm beginning to believe that anachronism and other goofs are more acceptable, even ignored, in very good films, but are found front and center in rotten films. KISS THEM FOR ME is a rotten film and reeks of anachronism, yet when watching it closely, I found almost nothing specifically anachronistic.The shots of aircraft which bookend the film are certainly out of place. The big 4 engine transport seen after the title "Honolulu 1944" appears to be the post war C-97 Stratofreighter (in MATS colors). The combat planes seen taking off from the carrier at the end are Douglas Skyraiders which entered service after WW2 and were made famous by their service in Vietnam.But excepting these two pieces of film and, of course, the hairstyles, everything else is very possibly period authentic. It just 'feels' so wrong. I'm an admirer of Stanley Donen, we share the same birthday. In his co directed ON THE TOWN (1949) there is a car chase at the end with the police driving 1949/50 Ford's yet there isn't the slightest feeling that this is out of place in a WW2 period film. In fact, as I reflected later, there isn't anything which says that this is supposed to be a WW2 period film. It just feels that way. Based on a wartime Broadway musical which was based on a ballet (Fancy Free) which may have been based on the work of artist Paul Cadmus (The Fleet's In! 1934) its a great film about sailors on a 24 hour pass in New York and, so heavy with wartime associations, its merely assumed it takes place during the war and yet these contemporary cars do nothing to break the spell.The first problem is old Cary Grant. Though far too old to represent a Navy SBD dive bomber pilot, it is a Hollywood tradition for stars like Grant, Gary Cooper (Lou Gehrig), Jimmy Stewart (Charles Lindbergh) to play younger. It was the role which he is miscast in, not his age. He plays an operator, as they used to call them. A guy who gets things done and breaks all the rules while doing it yet remains admired and loved for it. A hustler. A wheeler dealer. A de rigueur character in a service comedy. Grant is the comic center of what is after all supposed to be a service comedy which is contra to his comedy style.Thinking back on the great Grant comic performances like BRINGING UP BABY (1938) or ARSENIC AND OLD LACE (1944) and he is the great reactor whose comedy is to be reduced by his context from dignity to a befuddled puddle of inert jelly. IN KISS THEM he is expected to be the comic spark plug which just isn't him. People had already been exposed to the type, most recently to comic Phil Silvers as Sgt. Bilko on television. The role would be perfected later by James Garner but here Grant just isn't funny and appears to be a bully getting his way by aggressively pushing his Cary Grantness rather than cajoling and finessing.But the thing which really stinks the place up with anachronism is the lead women. There can be no more echt 50s women than Suzy Parker and Jayne Mansfield. They are unique to the decade. Marilyn Monroe can be placed in a continuum with Carole Lombard and Marie Wilson and any number of dumb blonds, and Grace Kelly was another high class dame (think of Mary Astor), but there never could have been an anatomically exaggerated woman in films like Mansfield. Sure there were the 'sweater girls' (e.g. Lana Turner) of WW2, but Mansfield was stretching the point. Suzy Parker was THE model who revolutionized the model business, who changed the mannequin like poses to become the first natural girl who moved and whose personality was captured by the camera (see FUNNY FACE (1957) also by Stanley Donen).Of course in high 50s style, there seems to be a lot of gender mixing at 'wild' parties but never even a hint of sex (think of the 50s TV shows Bachelor Father or The Bob Cummings Show where dinner jacketed men returned from 'dates' alone). The original book, which I haven't read, was published during the war and appeared as a play on Broadway at the end of the war and the nuances of the situation must have been inescapable for contemporary readers and audiences, but broken down, bowdlerized and reconstituted a dozen years later and fatally miscast, it remains a once forgotten stain on otherwise exemplary careers until the invention of the VCR and cable television resurrected this petrified turkey.So the lesson here is whatever the 'goof' it will be ignored in a great film like CITIZEN KANE (who actually hears Charles Foster Kane say 'Rosebud'?), and tolerated in fun dreck like WESTWORLD ( why were the robots given live ammunition in the first place?) but absolutely despised in a rotten film, even if the goofs are really non existent.
| 0
|
train_8019
|
"The Muppets Take Manhattan" is different in a lot of ways to every other Muppet Movie made so far. For one, it remains the only Muppet film not owned by Disney. As of 2008, the film still belongs to 20th Century Fox (CBS Fox at the time of its release) even though Disney owns the rights to the Muppets. Also, this film has a story line that's very non-linear, and events that are otherwise unpredictable.Of course, it's very hard to beat the original "Muppet Movie" from 1979, especially since that movie had more memorable songs than "Manhattan" does. However, one way in which "The Muppets Take Manhattan" is better than "The Muppet Movie" is perhaps the surprisingly realistic scenarios. In the first movie, all the Muppets really have to do is go to Hollywood, walk into an agent's office, and they are immediately given a "Rich & Famous" contract. In this movie, the Muppets learn that they actually have to work for their desired success, and it's a lot harder to do that, especially in the entertainment business, than they initially thought. That's an important and often times overlooked message, provided one is willing to suspend the disbelief that the Muppets, being small and made of cloth, don't necessarily have to live in a spacious place or even eat respectively. Above all, their struggle to make it after graduating college creates a very good story. Another note: The celebrity cameos in the movie were cool, and they surprisingly managed not to take away the spotlight from the Muppets. That ability right there is a testament to Henson, and how appealing the Muppet characters were even to adults.Where "Manhattan" falls flat, and this is where I'm sure people will disagree with me, is with some of the key songs, especially in the end. I thought the wedding song "He'll Make Me Happy" was too somber for such a happy occasion as a wedding. It sounded more like a song that's played at a funeral. Every time I watch this movie, hearing that song makes me unusually depressed, especially when the film begins on such an upbeat number as "Together Again" and ends happily for that matter. "Saying Goodbye" was a sad number too, but it fit better into the movie because the Muppets were disbanding and weren't sure they were going to see each other again. That last song was such a let down, and perhaps even added to younger viewers' misery of seeing their favorite Muppets leave the big screen."The Muppets Take Manhattan" is overall a good film, and one that marches to the beat of a different drum than the other Muppet films, including the newer ones made after the deaths of Jim Henson and Richard Hunt. Fortunately, the film marches in the same direction as well. I just wished the film ended on a better song that wasn't quite so melancholy. Plus, Disney should have gotten its hands on this film's copyright and given it a proper DVD release. Maybe it will someday. We'll see.
| 1
|
train_3061
|
This movie displays the kind of ensemble work one wishes for in every film. Barbara Bain and Donald Sutherland (who play husband and wife)are positive chilling, discussing the "family business" as if it were a grocery store or a dry cleaners. Macy, Campbell, Ullman, and Ritter are also terrific. They play off each other like members of a top-notch theatrical troupe, who realize that a quality product requires each actor to support the others unselfishly. And finally, there's Sammy (David Dorfman). What an amazing performance from a child...and what an uncanny resemblance he has to Ullman, whose son he plays!We're treated to a unique story in "Panic," and that's a rarity in these days of tired formulaic crap. The dialogue is sharp and smart, and this relatively short film nevertheless has the power to elicit a full range of emotions from the viewer. There are places to laugh, to be shocked, to be horrified, to be saddened, to be aroused, to be angry, and to love. It's not a movie that leaves you jumping for joy, but when it's over you're more than satisfied knowing you've spent the last ninety minutes experiencing a darn good piece of work.More of us would go to theatres if we were treated to quality fare like this. When are the powers that be in Hollywood going to wake up? It's a real shame when something this good fails to get exposure beyond festivals and households fortunate enough to have cable.
| 1
|
train_14084
|
I read the running man from Kings books as Bachman and I felt for the main character John and his family. This movie could have been SO much more. The trouble? It was set during the big action movie craze. I watched the movie and was in pain during the whole thing. I felt nothing for the character and less for his cause. Yes it had funny scenes (or laughable) though I think that it did not save the movie in my eyes. If you read the book you can feel the climax and the fire in the heart of John as he gets his final revenge.I give this movie a low number. It may not have been this low if I had not read the book.
| 0
|
train_16004
|
I have given this show (I have only watched seven episodes) four stars because most of her jokes/set-ups appear to fail. Some are not funny outright, but some are amusing -- in a 12 year old boy kind of way. She reminds me of that New York painter who throws paint upon a canvas, calls it art and sells it for a lot of money. Silverman throws out what she's got, including the kitchen sink, while she prays that a few things stick to the wall in her effort to be funny but different.However what she's "got" often times is not enough, as though she lacks the kind of follow-through a good comedian needs to succeed.The whole enterprise is like an under done potato.
| 0
|
train_19321
|
It was a good story, but not very well told. I liked the themes and the main story line, which wasn't as clear as it could have been. Maybe there was too much going on and a lack of ability to reign it all in. The acting was okay to cheesy, some were stronger than others and even the stronger actors had their moments of lesser quality acting. It took me a couple of months to get through the entire movie because it didn't keep my attention and the flow was just bad. I only just finished watching it and I'm glad I did as the movie finally gets moving and has some continuity toward the end. Again, a good story, but the delivery was sub par. Would recommend it for the story line and maybe a little eye candy, and I do mean, a little.
| 0
|
train_11635
|
On an overnight flight from Los Angeles to Miami, Lisa Reisert (Rachel McAdams) meets a charming man who turns out to be a hired killer who demands her help killing a businessman or else her own father will die.Red Eye is a terrific thriller that keeps the audience on the edge of their seats. The premise is similar to Cellular and Phone Booth but Red Eye is better than both of those films. Almost everything about Red Eye is above average including the suspense, the acting and the direction. Most of the film does take place on a plane but that doesn't slow down the movie. The film is very fast pace and exciting with no slow or boring spots. Wes Craven does a really good job behind the camera. Instead of focusing on the thrills, he focuses on the story and the characters. The movie does have its share of suspenseful moments but that's not what the film is really about. I also like the way Wes Craven focuses on the other passengers and the small details that become important later on. Red Eye really shows his skills at storytelling.Red Eye also works well because of its young and talented cast. Rachel McAdams gives a very engaging performance and her character is hard to hate. You may even end up cheering for her out loud. Cillian Murphy gives a very creepy and effective performance as the villain. The way he acts charming at first but then turns psycho is especially impressive. The supporting actors are also pretty good which include Brain Cox and Jayma Mays.The movie is also very stylish and it has this overall creepy vibe to it. The setting works well since there is an obvious fear of isolation and no escape. Overall, the tone of the film is consistently creepy. The screenplay isn't as strong as everything else though. There are a few unrealistic moments that may distract the viewer. Most of them didn't bother me but there were of few that left me shaking my head. Also, the ending is disappointing. It isn't a bad ending just a very simple one and a different approach would have been better. Since the movie focuses on the characters, there is really no scream moments maybe just a few jumps. If you expect a horror movie then you will end up disappointed. In the end, Red Eye is an engaging thriller and it's one of the best movies of the summer. Rating 8/10
| 1
|
train_5755
|
This is a pretty strange movie. It does comes across as an exploitation film with over-the-top violence and unrealistic situations, but unusual for being constructed around rural characters at war with each other, as opposed to an invading 'other'.The movie is an excessive stereotype of Vietnam veterans, in a long line of films that portrayed the vets of that war as dangerous psycopaths. Kris Kristofferson's last line is 'I ain't lost a war yet', as he meets his demise after wreaking a long trail of murder and destruction, including the town's chief of police and his brother's girlfriend in a particularly chilling scene. However, Kristofferson is a good enough actor, and charismatic enough, to carry this villain with a surprising depth. Vincent is clearly the golden boy, but with enough intensity layered over his clean cut goodness. The movie bears some plot resemblance to Winchester 73 where Jimmy Stewart tries to tolerate a criminal brother until being forced to act against him.The movie has b-movie grade action, though the presence of Kristofferson, Vincent, a gorgeous Victoria Principal and Bernadette Peters give it an A-grade lineup.I give it a 7 for being a long lost view into an American psyche of post-Vietnam/pre-Reagan introspection, paranoia, and confusion, and a movie industry that was willing to address such topics at that time.Seen on the THIS channel, a great network that keeps playing lots of old movies of the 70s through 90s, regardless of political bent.
| 1
|
train_9364
|
Love hurts. That, I think, is the main message Mike Binder's newest film Reign Over Me brings across. Whether that love has caused your relationship to become stagnant, or has brought anger from the one you love cheating for years, or has broken your heart to the point of being unable to open yourself up to the world, love hurts. The great thing about this film, however, is not in its portrayal of these lost souls trying to let their past heartbreaks go, but in the eventual restart of new bonds for the future. No one in this drama is perfect; they are all at some degree trapped emotionally in relationships that they can't free themselves from alone. There is some heavy subject material here and I credit Binder for never making the story turn into a political diatribe, but instead infusing the serious moments with some real nice comedic bits allowing the tale to stay character-based and small in scale compared to the epic event that looms overhead. What could have become a trite vehicle for opinions on how 9-11 effected us all, ends up being a story about two men and a connection they share that is the only thing which can save their lives from a life of depression and regret.This is a new career performance for Adam Sandler. I like to think that my favorite director Paul Thomas Anderson was the first to see the childish, pent-up anger in his stupid comedies as something to use dramatically. The juvenility of a character like Billy Madison allows for laughs and potty humor, but also can be used to show a repressed man, shy and shutout to the world around hima man with no confidence that needs an event of compassion to break him from his shell. Anderson let Sandler do just that in his masterpiece Punch-Drunk Love and Mike Binder has taken it one step further. Sandler plays former dentist Charlie Fineman whose wife and three kids were killed in one of the planes that took down the World Trade Center on 9-11. That one moment crushed any life that he had and as a result, he became reclusive and started to believe he couldn't remember anything that happened before that day. He really delivers a moving portrait of a man trying to keep up the charade in his head while those around him, those that love him, try and open him up to the reality of what happened and what the future holds. Always on edge and ready to snap at any moment when something is mentioned to spark the memory of his perished family, he goes through life with his iPod and headphones, shutting out everything so as not to be tempted remember.Reign Over Me is not about Charlie Fineman though, it is about dentist and family man Alan Johnson. A man that has trapped himself into a marriage and dental practice that both have stagnated into monotony, Johnson needs as much help in his life as his old college roommate Charlie does. Played perfectly by the always brilliant Don Cheadle, Johnson has lost his backbone to try and change his life. He has no friends and when he sees Charlie, by chance, one day, his life evolves into something he hasn't felt in 15 years. He revels in the chance to go out with an old friend no matter how much he has changed from the death of his family. Cheadle's character wants to revert back to the college days of hanging out and Sandler's doesn't mind because all that was before he met his wife. The two men get what they want and allow themselves to grow close despite the years of solitude that used to rule their lives. Once they begin opening up though, it is inevitable that the subject of the tragedy will creep up and test the façade they have created for themselves.The supporting cast does an amazing job helping keep up appearances for the two leads. Jada Pinkett Smith has never been an actress that impressed me and throughout the film played the tough as nails wife nicely, but it is her final scene on the phone with Cheadle that really showed me something different and true. Liv Tyler is a bit out of her element as a psychiatrist, but the movie calls her on this fact and makes the miscasting, perfect casting. The many small cameos are also effective, even writer/director Mike Binder's role as Sandler's old best friend and accountant, (my only gripe here is why he feels the need to put his name in the opening credits as an actor when it is everywhere, considering it is his film). Last but not least is the beautiful Saffron Burrows. She is a great actress and plays the love- crushed divorcée trying to put her life back together wonderfully. A role that seems comic relief at first, but ends up being an integral aspect for what is to come.Binder has crafted one of the best dramatic character studies I have seen in a long time. The direction is almost flawless, (the blurring between cuts and characters in the fore/ background really annoyed me in the beginning), the acting superb, and the story true to itself, never taking the easy way out or wrapping itself up with a neatly tied bow at the conclusion. Even the music was fantastic and used to enhance, not to lead us emotionally, (why after two great uses of the titular song by The Who did Binder feel the need to use the inferior Eddie Veddar remake for the end, I don't know, but it did unfortunately stick out for me). Reign Over Me is a film about love and how although it can cause the worst pain imaginable, it can also save us from regret and allow us to once again see the world as a place of beauty and hope.
| 1
|
train_4609
|
Probably Jackie Chan's best film in the 1980s, and the one that put him on the map. The scale of this self-directed police drama is evident from the opening and closing scenes, during which a squatters' village and shopping mall are demolished. There are, clearly, differences between the original Chinese and dubbed English versions, with many of the jokes failing to make their way into the latter. The latter is also hampered by stars who sound nothing like their Chinese originals. In fact, the only thing the dubbing has corrected is the court trialat the time, trials in colonial Hong Kong were conducted in English, while the original has this scene in Cantonese!Nonetheless, Chan's fighting style and the martial arts choreography inject humour where possible, so non-Cantonese audiences don't miss much. It's not, after all, the dialogue that makes a Chan flick, but the action and the painful out-takes. The story is easy to follow: Chan plays an incorruptible Hong Kong detective pursuing a gangland godfather (Cho Yeun), and assigned to protect a star witness (Brigitte Lin). The action is superb from beginning to end, and there's not much time to breathe in between. It'll never get you thinking, but what an entertaining, and well strung-together, film. Arguably, this is one of the best martial arts films out there.
| 1
|
train_1053
|
Sisters In Law is made by the same directors of the rather curiously fascinating 'Divorce, Iranian Style' which was as exactly as it stated, as we got a glimpse of Divorce court in Iran. Now they've turned their attention to the court system in Cameroon, Africa. What's great about this court is that 2 of the magistrates are Women, which is unusual for such a country like this. Anyways, they deal with plenty of men used to getting their way around the women, but this film is remarkable in the fact that it appears that women has made great strides in society, with divorce legal and women's rights being recognized. So the judges often chastise the men for behaving in a primitive way in these times. Not to say that the women who appear at the court get the softer treatment. One of the prime focuses of the film is a case of child abuse done by an Aunt. The judges waste no time in lashing out at the woman with fury. And who said that justice isn't served anymore? With these 2 behind the bench. They often carry out maximum penalties! Ya! You go girl!
| 1
|
train_2370
|
It's a great American martial arts movie. The fighting scenes were pretty impressive for American movie made in 90's. Of course the fighting scenes aren't that good as in Honk Kong movies, actually only few American movies have fighting scenes which are as good as in Honk Kong movies, even nowadays. When you watch American martial arts movie, you are expecting to see less impressive fighting scenes, but still having some nice moves, which can be surprisingly good sometimes, or at least that's what I'm expecting from these movies. I was impressed by this film. Some fighting scenes were really impressive, the acting, direction and the plot were good enough, so it's a really worth watching movie, if you like American martial arts films of the 90's.
| 1
|
train_6352
|
Jim Carrey shines in this beautiful movie. This is now one of my favorite movies. I read all about the making and I thought it was incredible how the did it. I can't wait till this comes out on DVD. I saw this in theaters so many times, I can't even count how times I've seen it.
| 1
|
train_2597
|
Ulysses as a film should in no way be compared with the novel, for they are two entirely different entities. However, that being said, the film still manages to maintain many of the elements that made the book work, but since it is a visual medium, it is more difficult to pull of stream-of-consciousness. I think this is the best film they could have made with the material... and this is from someone that routinely rants about films not being like their literary counterparts. I recommend the book, but the movie is still entertaining.
| 1
|
train_5916
|
I had watched this film from Ralph Bakshi (Wizards, Hey Good Lookin'), one night ago on www.afrovideo.org, and I didn't see anything racial (I am not stupid), I do admit the character designs are a bit crude and unaccpectable today, but I think it's a satire and a very,very urban retelling of the old Uncle Remus stories that the Black American culture, created right down to the main characters and the blatant nod to "The Tar Baby" and "The Briar Patch." These aren't bigoted stories, mind you, but cultural icons created by Black Americans, and me being a white woman read and love those stories. And I also found it an interesting time-capsule view on the black culture in Harlem, New York in the 70's.Well to get to the nitty-gritty of this film: This film is a live-action/animated film, which begins in live-action with a fellow named Sampson (Barry White) and the Preacherman (Charles Gordone) rush to help their friend, Randy (Philip Michael Thomas) escape from prison, but are stopped by a roadblock and wind up in a shootout with the police. While waiting for them, Randy unwillingly listens to fellow escapee Pappy (Scatman Crothers), as he begins to tell Randy the animated story of Brother Rabbit, a young newcomer to the big city who quickly rises from obscurity to rule over all of Harlem; you know, to me Rabbit,Bear and Fox are animal versions of Randy,Sampson and the Preacherman. An abstract juxtaposition of stylized animation and live action footage, the film is a graphic and condemnatory satire of stereotypes prevalent in the 70s racial, ethnic, and otherwise.So anyway, it is another GOOD Bakshi movie; and should we sweep films like this under the rug? pretend they never exist? hmmm...I think that would be a shame; I think we should watch these films entacted, and learn about what goes on back then, just how far we come since then.
| 1
|
train_6582
|
Okay, so there is a front view of a Checker taxi, probably late 1930s model. It has the great triangular shaped headlights. There also is a DeSoto cab in this black and white, character driven, almost a musical love gone wrong story.The real pleasure here is the look at 1940s room interiors and fashions and hotel elevators. The hair styles, male and female are gorgeous. If Dolly Parton had Victor Mature's hair she could have made it big. There is an artist loft that would be the envy of every Andy Warhol wannabe.If you watch this expecting a great Casablanca storyline or Sound of Music oom-pah-pah, you will be disappointed. There is a nice little story beneath the runway model approach in this film.My copy on DVD with another movie for $1 was very viewable. The title sequence was cute but not up there with Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World or The Pink Panther. This was an RKO movie but it did not have the nice airplane logo that RKO used to use.I liked Victor Mature in One Million, B.C., and Sampson and Delilah and especially in Violent Saturday. See if you can find that one. He was wonderful in the comedy with Peter Sellers called Caccia Alla Volpe or After The Fox.Richard Carlson went on to do I Led Three Lives on TV in the early 1950s.Vic Mature was offered the part of Sampson's father in the remake of Sampson and Delilah. He supposedly was asked if he would have any problems playing the part of the father since he was so well known as Sampson. Victor replied, "If the money is right, I'll play Sampson's mother." Tom Willett
| 1
|
train_15632
|
I saw not so fabulous rating on IMDb, but I went to see it anyway, because I am a big fan of Bible related material. First thing that bothered me was a little too much Indiana Jones wannabe movie, but it also looked like Casper Van Dien didn't see those Jones movies through (but he should). I believe he tried his best, but script just stunk. Music tried to be kinda Jones style too. Great work, but for such movie it seemed like too much work, like the video part did't deserve all that great music. Robert Wagner gave his best acting skills, he did a good job, but somehow the script was bringing everything down. "Jokes" are old school, somewhere 20 years old; they brought only cynic smile to my face. There are some really bad camera angels, SFX looks like homemade and unrealistic. Kevin VanHook had probably a good idea on the story (in my opinion, but I love such stories), but things just didn't work out in the end. Maybe he should put it on a paper when it was still fresh in his head. When I (in first minutes) saw that movie was going to be one of those 'low budget movies', I hoped that I will at least 'hear' a good story, but sometimes movies just disappoint.
| 0
|
train_24659
|
i can't believe i actually watched this but i guess i just wanted to know if this movie would get unintentionally funnier and funnier towards the end. and it did. the climax was the poorest performance ever given by the defence lawyer - so out of real life that even for a fictional story it was far too weird. no way anyone on this planet can behave in front of a court like she did. and probably the worst prosecutor on earth. why was he in court anyway? he did nothing and absolutely nothing to prove her guilty. a simple search of her house would have resulted in the find of the rings. but no go. he preferred to say "objection" 2 or 3 times during the whole trial - that was it. the blonde lunatic was given a truth-drug to prove her innocent but not Brett. the lunatic almost had an altar of Brett in her home that could have proved her sick obsession. but again no go. during the court scene i felt the silent urge to take the needlepoint out of her hand and bang it several times against her head. even real weirdos do not look that silly fake "i am innocent" like she did. and what does this movie tell us? never marry a woman with a life insurance: as soon as she falls down the stairs her husband will be thrown into jail, guilty or not. evil, evil men.
| 0
|
train_15044
|
Gung Ho was a good idea, however it is to much to ask Americans viewers to understand the dynamics of American jobs and foreign competition.In this movie the main character Hunt Stevenson(Michael Keaton) goes to Japan and convinces a Japanese auto company to come to America and help his dying Pennslyvania town. Two things come at you.First why would a Japanese company come to America to make cars when they do so ,and so well at that? Secondly can anyone understand that American companies of all types go to third world nations to have their products made to escape American labor costs? It makes the film's premise then that the Number one maker of cars in the world would go to one of its' top competitors(aside from Germany)and put a plant there as unrealistic. Keaton was still in his comedy mode by this time. But he gives a credible performance all the same as he could prove that he could go from comedy to drama in a matter of seconds and still not embarrass himself but Director Ron Howard can't keep this from becoming a TV movie which it ends up being anyway because they have to give the unlikely story a happy ending the politics and problems of Japanese and American relations not withstanding. Gung Ho has a Happy Days and Laverne and Shirley feel to it as the producers of both TV shows made the film and then made the TV version of this movie as well which gives the film its' lightweight feel.The Japanese manager gets to love his American workers and feels he and other Japanese people can learnfrom Americans.His No.2 man Saito who supposedly doesn't like Americans all that much doesn't think so.I would have prefered all the Japanese characters been like Saito than the soft goofball characters they made the Japanese out to be.It would have made the film more interesting.
| 0
|
train_18984
|
I suppose it was for Temple Matthews who written basically a remake even though there are few changes which just make it worse. SPOILERS: It is much similar to the original. Melody, Ariel's new daughter is threatened by Ursula's sister, Morgana. Morgana escapes, but keeps her promise to take Melody away from them. Did Ursula have a sister?! And she is not that great a villain as Ursula was. This is where there is similarity. Medoly is kept from the sea until Morgana is captured, but she doesn't know a thing about it, because it all happened when she was a baby. A wall surrounds the palace to keep her in and morgana out. She goes under the wall day to day to have a swim and talk with Sebastian, who is not as funny or fun as in the original. She finds a seashell with her name on it and runs away from home and to look for answers and finds Morgana. Here is a similarity; Morgana tricks Melody, making her happy by turning here into a mermaid. Meanwhile, Eric, Melody and King Triton look for her. To stay a mermaid she needs to steal the trident from Triton. So Melody does, because she does not know King Triton is her father. She makes friends with a penguin and a walrus and here is where it is awful. The penguins who live with them in an icy ocean, hate them because they are cowards. So they try to prove they are heroes and fail. That does not suit the little mermaid. And the dialogue during those conversations between the penguins and those two characters is ear-bleeding. you know why? Because the first had a great story. This one is not and is not magical. It is just an example of how bad many sequels are.Melody finds them and they help to take her to Atlantica to prove themselves. When they take the trident, Ariel finds Melody with Morgana. Melody is angry at her mother for keeping her from the sea so she gives the trident to Morgana, then she shows her true colours once she grabs it. Poor Ariel and Melody are in her custody. The penguin and the walrus begin to prove themselves when they fight Morgana's shark friend. Sorry I did not mention him earlier. They finally prove themselves. Eric, King Triton and his soldiers arrive but are forced to bow down before Morgana by the power of the trident. Melody takes it, throws it to Triton and he ices Morgana (literally). Then Ariel apologises to Melody and thinks it is all her fault. It was not! Ariel did the right thing to protect Melody, but they never say so. Triton offers Melody to live in sea or land. She in fact has a "better idea". She uses the trident to vaporize the wall so humans and mer-folk can be together. Then everyone sings an awful song. THE END.Whoever has seen it and likes this obviously has not seen the original. I do not dislike this because I am a teenager. I liked it when I was very very little. Then as I grew older I began to see what is bad about this film. young, young kids will enjoy it, but it is likely that when they are in primary school, they will forget about it. Normally I would think I over-judged a film and it was better than I remember when I watched it again, but not this one. It is even worse. Story is no exception. If you thought, by reading this that the story is good, read more of this comment and you will know the other bad points: Well, you know the story now. I am sorry for spoiling it for you, but I had to point out some bad parts of it. One of the worst things is the animation. Colour is awful. The original had beautiful colour. Watching this almost made me want to go blind. Even the illustrations and landscape design were not good. The original had beautiful, magical colouring and beautiful underwater landscape design and for land as well, making it a joy to watch.The music is unbearable. Compared to the first, the music here is crap. Songs are not that well composed and Tara Strong (I think that is her name) who did Melody can not sing. She at times either sang too high or did not keep track for the melody in the song. So much for having "Melody" as a name.And the music is not at all beautiful or moving. Little Mermaid 1 won an Oscar for it and it truly deserved it. This one deserved a razzie award for worst musical score in a sequel if it would exist.I did not like the voices. Several people who played characters from the first, did the same ones in this. Jodi Benson is a great singer, but now that she is older, no offence to her, her voice is too deep and not so beautiful anymore. And I am really disappointed in her and others who were in the first for being a part of this. If I was chosen for this film, just by reading the script, I can tell it would be a bad film. The characters are different now. Ariel is more wiser now, but annoying. They overdid her character, making her too mature. In sequels you are not meant to change the characters unless it is for a special reason. She was sixteen in the first. There is little chance she changes. That is the stage when you become the person you are going to be for the rest of your life. Screenwriters should think of that. They should think of the character.Well, I suppose that is it for me. I hope you find my comment useful, because I am sure a lot of you will agree with my point of view.
| 0
|
train_24245
|
The fact that I did not like the music is a very personal opinion, the historical innacuracies are not. I do realize that it is an opera and not a documentary, but some important aspects are missing, especiallly if other people comment falsely because of it.Abbu Abas was the mastermind of this operation, which was staged and reorganized due to discovery on board the shiph, in order to free 50 terrorists from Israeli prisons, one of which was Samir Kuntar, a heinous terrorist whose story you can find by searching for "klinghoffer samir kuntar" on google. Abbu Abbas was responsible for many other terrorist operations, even if he never set foot on the Achile Lauro. Ben Laden never set foot on the planes that hit the WTC, did he?*** possible spoilers ***The movie almost excuses the terrorists' actions and reactions because of horrors they might have lived, always accentuating and exaggerating how much the Israeli's have done to hurt them. However, they never portray the hurt that the Palestinians have ever caused to the Israelis. The movie uses (quite horrid!!!) images from the Sabra and Chatila horror, and nothing is said, understating the general belief that it was Israel who was responsible, without ever mentioning that it was a Syrian-les Lebanese army who conducted the massacre.The acting was generally very bad, but I guess that's what can be expected from opera singers?On another note I am shocked at how a person can excuse terrorists killing a hostage because the hostage tried to stir the 400 innocent hostages against the armed terrorists, and add that the person should not be considered sympathetic because he is a supporter of zionism. Imagine how unsympathetic his wife was, spitting on the terrorists who shot her husband and threw his body into the sea. I hope no one in the world is as cruel as she is(wink wink)
| 0
|
train_5102
|
don't mind the soundtrack, which is played out by now.Still, Debra Winger is always interesting and while this was an earlier role for her, she is quite good as Cissy, girl from the wrong side of the tracks, lived in trailer with Bud, (Travolta), only to be replaced for a time by city slicker Madolyn Smith as a rival.I agree with an earlier review regarding Scott Glenn, he is used for plot only, thrown in to the mix to create suspense; the story is predictable and contrived.Also, even though I am from the east, many of us did NOT like "Saturday Night Fever", while it had its moments, the perpetual stereotypes are beyond criticism at this point.Worth seeing for Debra Winger; she is still so likable, and never had that Hollywood persona we are subjected to by too many actresses today. 7/10
| 1
|
train_14027
|
If you really, truly want to waste two hours of your life, do the following: 1) Look through the TV listings. 2) Find the movie 'Men in White'. 3) When 'Men in White' comes on, sit and watch.And that's it. After sitting through two hours of bad puns, dreadful (and not that funny) movie references, and experiencing something with possibly the lowest production values ever made in recent history, you will have wasted two hours of your life, and wonder exactly why.Why did I do this? I was stupid enough to think that this film might actually be some good. It wasn't.But, on the other hand, if you're old enough to remember Power Rangers, you might spot some familiar faces during the film. Presumably to save on production costs, Saban (who also make Power Rangers), decided to liberally sprinkle old monster costumes from everyone's favourite tacky toy-spawning franchise throughout the film. I spotted quite a few old monsters from episodes I saw from when I was a kid, so I guess it could at least be said it has some nostalgia value.But, if you want to see actual Power Rangers monsters, go watch Power Rangers itself. It's much better than this piece of garbage. (And that's saying something!)
| 0
|
train_11303
|
Visconti's first film has all his trademark visual flair and immaculate technique, accompanied by compelling performances from Massimo Girotti as the handsome drifter and, best of all, Clara Calamai as the fabulous, frantic Giovanna. Remade several times as 'The Postman Rings Twice' but never bettered. Can't believe this was the man's first film! It shows the confidence of someone at the zenith of their career.
| 1
|
train_24210
|
There is only one reason to watch this movie if you are not related to one of the stars or a producer: actress Nichole Hiltz. She is the show in this slow moving and wildly unlikely story of revenge. Directed by Simon Gornick, the film stars Joyce Hyser as a betrayed wife who decides to seek revenge on her cheatin' spouse. Oh, but not by conventional means. She plans a total guerrilla war and recruits bad girl Nichole Hiltz as her weapon of choice. She wants Nichole (as Tuesday) to get close to her ex (the handsome but dull Stephan Jenkins, who should stick to music) to embarrass him and ruin his life. David DeLuise is good in his few brief moments, and former "Crime Story" star Anthony Dennison is given virtually nothing to do but scowl. Hiltz on the other hand comes off at various times as sexy and playful, then evil and devious. She also handles vulnerable and "maybe a bit psychotic" well. She's also quite hot (though there's no naughty bits show) so you can understand how she might be able to get to any guy she is aimed at. But the performance is kind of wasted in this movie, which is just not edgy or interesting enough to recommend.
| 0
|
train_18217
|
Whoa nelly! I've heard a ton of mixed reviews for this...but one of my go to hardcore horror reviewers really found it to be disappointing. Man was he right on the nose! This movie was acted by pure amateurs. They HAD to have done one take, maybe two on each scene, the movie seemed soooo rushed. The script was also poor....they had lines that tried to be unique but failed. Miserably. "Get your meathooks off of me!" Oh man, I hate it when movies try to do that. It happens all the time with comedies...but, with a horror movie and with below average actors....the results are incredibly pathetic. The lines and scenarios were all very predictable. But what made me feel so negative towards this movie was, again, the damn acting. It was awful. Besides by the little Asian guy who worked the booth. I thought he was great.The movie is about 5 stupid dumbsh!t tourist who are on a vacation in Asia. They end up at the wrong place and fall into the hands of a mafia run sex/slaughterhouse. Sounds like a cool story. But watching someone with a bad case of diarrhea is probably more fun and intense to watch. The only reason this is considered horror is because of the killing. There wasn't a trace of suspense.I like many other horror fans were dying to get their bloody little mitts on this. But unfortunately with a HUGE capital U, the movie was incredibly disappointing. I did enjoy the ankle break and the blood effects. The flabby chicks were also so so.Everything about this movie screams amateur. This is Ryan Nicholson's first feature length, and for the most part he failed. There's no denying he has a sick sense of humor and taste for horror. I pray his next movie doesn't play out like another B horror flick...unless he tells us that's what it's gonna be. Even after this disappointment I'm willing to give Ryan another shot. From what I've seen of him, he's a true, dedicated man to the genre. Good luck next time, because this was bad news.
| 0
|
train_10644
|
The second of the Why We Fight Series concentrates on Hitler's grab of the Sudetanland and beyond as he makes a chump out of Neville Chamberlain and embarks on his conquest of Europe. Clearly meant as propaganda in its day this series over the test of time has become an informative documentary as well with most of the "Allied bias" turning out to be historical fact. The Fuhrer hoists himself on his own petard with smug pronouncements before his people and the world as he says one thing and does another as his army moves East. The Czechs and Austrians quickly capitulate but the Poles put up an heroic struggle against overwhelming odds. The disparity between Hitler's military might and Chamberlain waving the Munich treaty like a white flag, declaring "Peace in our time" to this day has durable propaganda qualities. Here in its original context it resonates even more powerfully as the darkness of World War ll sets in on Europe leaving the American viewer with two options, freedom or slavery. In 1943 there was no evading this simple truth and The Nazis Strike makes its point effectively.
| 1
|
train_6685
|
Director Kinka Usher stays true to his own credo, "Play it straight and they will laugh," and with the help of a superb cast has crafted what should become the #1 cult film of all time, `Mystery Men.' When an evil villain, Casanova Frankenstein (Geoffrey Rush) is released from a mental institution, captures the local superhero, Captain Amazing (Greg Kinnear), and threatens to take over Champion City, three wanna-be superheroes, Mr. Furious (Ben Stiller), The Shoveler (William H. Macy) and The Blue Raja (Hank Azaria) come to the rescue. Frankenstein has been joined by a myriad assortment of underworld scum, however, and has become a formidable opponent. The trio realize that help is needed, and decide to recruit; what they end up with is nothing less than the most unforgettable team of `superheroes' ever assembled in the history of the cinema. Mr. Furious has his rage; The Shoveler, his shovel; The Blue Raja flings silverware (mainly forks, and the occasional spoon, but never a knife); the Invisible Boy (Kel Mitchell) can turn invisible as long as no one is watching; the Sphinx (Wes Studi), a heavy hitter from down south, is very mysterious and can break guns in half with his mind. Maybe; the Bowler (Janeane Garofalo) can fling a ball with deadly accuracy; and The Spleen (Paul Reubens) wields flatulence that can incapacitate an entire room. This is a brilliant ensemble piece that delivers the laughs without ever becoming condescending or patronizing the audience, while playing it straight at all times. The dialogue is witty, and the performances given by Stiller, Macy, Azaria and Garofalo are exemplary. There is a number of memorable, hilarious scenes, especially the one in which they throw a pool party and barbecue to recruit, and conduct interviews with a stupefying assemblage of applicants; and another, in a bar, when the Bowler has a conversation with her long-dead father, whose skull has been implanted in her bowling ball. The funniest of all, however, has to be when the team actually attempts to rescue Captain Amazing. But these are only examples, for the entire movie is composed of one hilarious scene after another, laced with subtle humor that will keep you laughing and thinking about it for a long time. The real secret of it's success, though, is that Usher keeps it all real; the relationships between the characters are true, and the whole concept of being a `Superhero' is played as being entirely reasonable, which somehow gives a sense of credibility to the entire proceedings. In this world, the aspirations of Mr. Furious and the rest are tenable, and Usher keeps the laughs coming without ever resorting to slapstick or mere sight gags. The solid supporting cast includes Lena Olin (Dr. Annabel Leek), Eddie Izzard (Tony P.), Tom Waits (Doc Heller), Claire Forlani (Monica), Louise Lasser (The Blue Raja's mother), Jenifer Lewis (Lucille) and Pras (Tony C.). `Mystery Men' is a truly inspired movie that can be seen over and over again, with a new chuckle to be had with every viewing, guaranteed. In the immortal words of the Sphinx, `We are number one! All others are number two, or lower.' Is it an Oscar-worthy movie? Hardly; but for a good time and a lot of laughs, treat yourself to this masterwork of comedy; it's the real deal, and you won't regret it. I rate this one 10/10.
| 1
|
train_8956
|
I watched this movie after watching Practical Magic, and the older film was far superior. I liked the way the lighting, makeup, and costumes changed as Gillian changed in the story. Jimmy Stewart's mannerisms didn't do a lot for me in this film, but I suppose they did serve to highlight the reserve of Gillian's character. I was also struck by Nicky's and Gillian's mannerisms--it was as if the director wanted him to appear effeminate and Gillian to appear masculine. The gestures Nicky makes when he's showing Redlich his powers especially struck me. I've never thought of warlocks as being effeminate, so it was an interesting way of contrasting those characters.
| 1
|
train_12057
|
I saw this film on television years ago, but here several years after, I wake up in the morning, and still remember her face.This film is the most profoundly terrifying film I have seen.
| 1
|
train_17674
|
This movie was so bad I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I had high hopes for Horrorfest that year, which was also the first year I attended Horrorfest, and I have to say Horrorfest and all of its films take false advertising to a whole new level. Mad kudos to the advertisers because I'm sure they tricked a lot of people into spending money and seeing those movies that year. The Hamiltons was easily the worst one of the ones I've seen (the other ones I saw were Unrest, Dark Ride, and Reincarnation). The movie cover and trailer made it seem like a family of cannibals terrorizing the neighborhood which I thought was a rather interesting plot, only to be disappointed at the end discovering that it was some 'coming of age' tale about a boy's transition into being a vampire. Which is why drama prevails over any sense of horror in this film. And to make the plot even more ridiculous, they add in a set of horny twins who can't wait to take a 'bite' out of one another, and some deadly creature locked in the basement, which if I had discovered what 'it' was had the secret not been revealed at the very end of the film, I would have left the theater halfway into the movie.Complete waste of money and time. Cut forty minutes out of this film, and make it into an episode on some show like Smallville or Charmed or Supernatural and it would have received more praise than this. Absolute rubbish! So bad that two years later, I have to come back to IMDb and write a review about it because it still stands out in my memory as one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Also, while you're reading this, steer clear from the rest of the Horrorfest movies in the future. The most you could do is rent them from Blockbusters or watch it online somewhere. Horrorfest features movies from independent filmmakers who can't make it onto the big screen, and all the crap about 'stuff they don't show you in theaters', they weren't referring to blood or guts, or horror...they were referring to the movies themselves. Because they're horrendous. Think of Horrorfest as a less renowned version of Sundance Film Festival, but for horror movies.Sorry for all the 'hate', but next time think twice before you cheat costumers out of their money.
| 0
|
train_22298
|
15 years ago, Power Rangers was one of the shows that swept the nations, especially that of the youth. When I was a 3-year-old kid living in the Philippines, I would watch this show every Friday on ABS-CBN (Channel 2 over there). When the movie came out in 1995, it was all shock and awe to me when I watched it with my dad and 2 uncles. My grandparents even sent me a "Balikbayan" box full of Power Rangers stuff (including the easy-to-build Megazord figure and the stuffed toys of the Rangers). I even played the video games, and loved only one of them ("MMPR: Fighting Edition"), which was REALLY sad. Anyway, it was the show that set a stepping stone on my interest on robot series (especially anime mech series like "Gundam") Now that I'm 18, I'd like to think this show is pretty cheesy to me now. To prove this, I took a trip down memory lane by buying a 2-set DVD collection with "MMPR: The Movie" and "Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie" and watched both of them. I was like, "Ugh. How awful. Just another junk in the attic for me." For all of you people of my generation, this is NOT a show that you'd want to watch over and over again. I'm not saying to leave it behind for the rest of your life, but occasionally is not a bad thing now, is it? Instead of "Power Rangers", I'd recommend something like "Mobile Fighter G Gundam" (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED), "Ninja Senshi Tobikage" (aka Ninja Robots), or even the ORIGINAL Sentai shows that were the basis of "Power Rangers."
| 0
|
train_2849
|
I cannot say this movie is a disappointment because I read some reviews before watching and it did not do as well as I thought it would have. The bar was not set that high, so the fact that my expectations were met is not saying much.The Good: The city of New York. If you live in the city like me, you'll recognize certain places and understand that the city is supposed to be more than just a setting, rather one of the main characters. There are genuinely tender moments, humorous conversations, and plot twists left and right which all keep things interesting.The Bad: The first thing I thought after leaving the theater was that I wanted more, but not in the positive "leave them wanting more" fashion. Certainly the good skits/scenes outweigh the bad, but there are a lot of skits that fall within the "in-between" category, too many in fact, which is what ultimately brings the movie down. Also, New York City's diversity, though hinted at though the many distant pans of the city and mentioned in conversation throughout the movie, is never really realized or analyzed to the point of doing the city justice. For example, many of the skits involve well to do middle aged whites. I mean I know the city is home to many of the said demographic but come on, Paris Je'taime's plot and character diversity makes New York City look like Lancaster, PA, or someplace really white. It is just disappointing to see the city shortchanged on its heritage like that.Still, even after having said this, I would recommend giving New York, I Love You a view. Who knows, maybe you'll disagree with my opinion and maybe you won't. You will never know until you see it for yourself. This review is not meant to deter anyone from watching this movie, as everyone's opinion on art differs. I'm just giving you a very vague heads up on what to expect.
| 1
|
train_13791
|
I am sad that a period of history that is so fascinating and so rich in material for film can be made into a ho-hum event . Wm C Quantrill was barely shown in the film , probably the most intriquing figure of the period. Frank James was never mentioned, Cole Younger , ditto , and Bloody Bill Anderson , who would weep for his murdered sister every time he went into battle was completely absent in the script. Instead we were forced to watch fictitious characters that never developed into anyone we cared about. how sad. The costumes were wonderful however, as was the location shooting in Missouri. I hope Ang Lee will make another film from the period and try again, or some other film maker will look into the tremendous wealth of material to write a screen play on .
| 0
|
train_4549
|
"My Left Foot" is a pretty impressive film that tells the story of Christy Brown, an artist who was crippled with cerebral palsy and learned to paint with his left foot, the only limb in his body he had control over. Daniel Day-Lewis won his first Oscar as Best Actor for this film, which I'm not absolutely certain was deserved, but is still noteworthy. Day-Lewis give Brown a realistic and occasionally almost humorous touch. Brenda Fricker, as Brown's devoted mother, also won an Oscar for a believable and touching role. My problem with this film is that it is a bit too real at times. When Brown is in desperation and must help someone and do it all with his left foot, the film can be difficult to watch. This gives it an often depressing feel that may turn off some viewers for a time. However, if you look beyond that, you will see a sense of hope and inspiration for those who have handicaps and other difficulties to overcome. Those of us who are not crippled and still consider ourselves to have problems are inspired by this film, because if somewhat with a much worse condition than us can overcome their difficulties, we can certainly do the same thing. Well made, occasionally enjoyable, but difficult to watch. May not be for everyone, but not bad at all.*** out of ****
| 1
|
train_9158
|
Last night I finished re-watching "Jane Eyre" (1983), the BBC mini-series adapted from Charlotte Bronte's Gothic romance novel which is deservingly a classic of English literature with Timothy Dalton (my favorite James Bond) as Mr. Edward Rochester and Zelah Clarke, as Jane Eyre, a poor orphaned 18-year-old girl, a governess at Mr. Rochester's estate, Thornfield. "Jane Eyre" has been one of my most beloved books since I was an 11-years-old girl and the friend of mine gave it to me with the words, "This book is amazing" and so it was and I have read it dozens of times and I am still not tired of it. Its beautiful language, refined, fragrant, and surprisingly fresh, the dialogs, and above all, two main characters, and the story of their impossible love have attracted many filmmakers. "Jane Eyre" has been adapted to TV and big screen many times, 18 according to IMDb. The actors as famous and marvelous as Joan Fontaine and Orson Welles, William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsbourg, George C. Scott and Susannah York, Ciarán Hinds and Samantha Morton have played the couple that had overcome hundreds of obstacles made by society, laws, religion, by the differences in age, backgrounds, experiences, and by the fateful mistakes that would hunt one for many years. Of all these films I've only seen one, 300 minutes long BBC version from 1983 that follows the novel closely and where Timothy Dalton who frequently plays dark, brooding characters did not just play Edward Rochester brilliantly and with class, he WAS Mr. Rochester - sardonic, vibrant, the force of nature, powerful, passionate, sexy, and tormented master of Thornfield. Zelah Clarke was also convincing as sweet, gentle, intelligent and strong Jane who feels deeply and is full of passion mixed with clear reasoning, and quiet but firm willpower.Added on September 17, 2007: During the last two weeks, I've seen five "Jane Eyre" movies and it was a wonderful experience. There is something to admire in every adaptation of "Jane Eyre" even if not all of them are completely successful. This version is still my favorite "Jane Eyre" film.
| 1
|
train_23473
|
If you loved "Pulp Fiction" and like hand held cameras you should love this film. I liked the quirky story (even though I feel that "Pulp Fiction" was the most over-rated movie since "The English Patient") and found the characters unrealistic but interesting. It's not "On the Waterfront" or "Citizen Kane" and is burdened by European pretentiousness. But the worst part by far is the hand held camera. It is so distracting and annoying I found myself waiting desperately for the movie to end. I don't know why new directors think this method of filming is so great. If you are prone to motion sickness, stay away, the hand held camera will have you nauseous in about 10 minutes.
| 0
|
train_18356
|
T. Rama Rao made some extremely beautiful films in the 1980s, but he seems to be a filmmaker who cannot mature with the changing times, styles and fashions. He's like stuck with the same old-fashioned film-making style.Actors are not bad, not good either. Anil Kapoor generally acts convincingly his two roles of a father and his son, but the flawed script often makes him look funny and pathetic. Rekha is good, but then - she's always good, and here she's nothing more than such. She makes the best of what she is given, but she always does that. In conclusion, nothing great at all. Raveena is OK, which means ordinary, not bad, not good, nothing.This film is melodramatic, occasionally stupid. Maybe it's a delayed film? Well, even then it still would be below standard. The script is terrible, the film is overdone, and the story goes nowhere. It feels like a film made in the early 1990s, but the script makes it look even older, the style is like from the 1950s.Don't recommend, unless you're a big fan one of the starring actors.
| 0
|
train_7979
|
Tony Scott can make good films and bad, personally I think he can be a bit flashy and trashy and his work obviously suffers in comparison with that of his rather famous brother, but this is quite possibly his best film.What makes this film so great is that Scott gives Denzel (on scorching form, better than Training Day) and the revelation who is Dakota Fanning time to develop a relationship of real warmth and tenderness. The set up is absolutely NOT boring, although it takes time - it is involving, and takes us on a little journey into the characters - including a superb role for Radha Mitchell as the mother. This all serves to make the action so much more effective, as we are so invested in the characters, for all their all too obvious weaknesses. This film has you on the edge for its entirety, and doesn't cop out at the end either.The film would of course be nothing without Washington. I often wonder why he seems to get so many duff roles, when he quite clearly is as good as almost any leading man out there (I can only really think of one, Daniel Day Lewis, who has more on-screen power these days). This film should have been huge, given his status and the strength of his performance, and the quality of the film. It just goes to show you that if a studio doesn't back a film to the hilt, it ends up going straight to video. I wish I'd got the chance to see this on the big screen.
| 1
|
train_18176
|
This movie shows a clip of live animal mutilation of an animal getting hacked by a machete and getting its skin ripped off. I know these horrible things happen in the world, but Im watching movies based on the fact that what Im watching is not actually happening on the screen. These live animal clips are not meant to be in movies, they are meant to show people that belong to certain organizations to help the horrible things that humans to do other species.This should be banned and destroyed. I have also contacted Netflix and other resources to collaborate getting this movie off the market!!This movie should be removed from the public. The person who made this movie needs psychological help.
| 0
|
train_8015
|
I first saw this movie in the theater when I was 8 years old and it still cracks me up. The Muppets are so cool and they approach show business in a refreshingly naive way. My favorite scene is when the rats start a whispering campaign on behalf of Kermit at a fancy restaurant. This is one smart and funny movie for kids and parents alike. Long live Kermit, Miss Piggy and the rest of the gang.
| 1
|
train_21509
|
What a dreadful movie! For some reason, scientific laboratories and outposts always have a staff of grubby, dirty, mean-spirited, misanthropes living inside. These folks who presumably work together on complicated scientific projects cannot seem to agree on how to survive death at the hands of a CGI Dragon. Spoilers: An extra-nasty scientist whose main acting skill is "leering" and "the sinister stare" has cloned a Dragon. While the lab was supposed to work on this kind of thing, the other scientists are shocked, because apparently they were all way behind in their experiments and got caught with their pants down. The rest of the story is like THE THING, or Ten Little Indians, where the staff is hunted and killed off as they try to formulate a way to escape and/or defeat the "Dragon." The CGI Dragon creature is dark gray, which seems to be the popular color for most of the cheap CGI special effects. It hardly looks better than a cartoon, and the dark gray tones make it difficult to see any interesting details in the body of the Dragon. All it looks like is a gray blob. The acting is less than horrible. These scientists act like a bunch of children who cannot agree on anything, and this makes it easier for the Dragon to kill them off in various attempts to escape, hide, etc. Dean Cain is hardly better than any of the cast of unknown actors in this movie. He seems to sink to the level of his supporting cast. This movie is really, really atrocious. The acting is bad. The story is dumb. The CGI is very very cheap and amateurish. There is nothing commendable about this movie, it is not even a good time-killer to glance at while doing chores or other work.
| 0
|
train_12382
|
Here's a decent mid-70's horror flick about a gate of Hell in NYC that just happens to be an old brownstone. Seems like there's lots of gates of Hell around, but of course this unwitting model happens to decide she needs some space from her boyfriend/fiancée and so she just happens to pick one, which is disguised as a nice and reasonably priced apartment. She meets several strange neighbors, and even attends a birthday party for a cat. Upon meeting with the Realtor because she hears strange noises at night from upstairs, she finds out that she and an old priest are SUPPOSED to be the only tenants. Whoa! Then who are all these weirdos? Her boyfriend (a slimy lawyer, played by Chris Sarandon) starts poking around and finds that things are not what they seem, not by a long shot. This has some decent creepy scenes and the idea of the creaky old folks that are her "sometimes" neighbors being other than what they appear is fairly intriguing. A bit of decent gore and even a parade of less-than-normal folks towards the end make this a decent watch, and while I've seen this many times on TV the uncut DVD version is much better, of course. Not a bad little horror flick, maybe a good companion piece to "Burnt Offerings". 8 out of 10.
| 1
|
train_373
|
this movie is such a moving, amazing piece of work. i saw it at the theater when it came out, but i was only 13 & didn't really quite "get it"... i saw it again when i was 20 (on video of course & i now own it) & was just blown away. Steven Spielberg created a wonderful movie that keeps you wrapped up in it from beginning to end. i have read the book as well, but there is just something about the movie that really brings it to life. the casting, acting, music, costuming, scenery, everything, it just wonderful. you laugh, you cry, you cheer... it brings out every emotion imaginable. it is one of his finest pieces of work & should not be missed!
| 1
|
train_16025
|
Once in a while, a movie will sweep along that stuns you, draws you in, awes you, and, in the end, leaves you with a renewed belief in the human race from the artistry form. This is not it. This is an action movie that lacks convincing action. It stinks. Rent something else.
| 0
|
train_5460
|
Lily Powers works at a speakeasy until her father dies.She then goes to New York to work at an office building.There she notices that if she wants to get any higher she has to give the men what they want.And what men want is her...well, you know.Alfred E.Green's Baby Face (1933) is a movie of high sexual content.For a movie of that era, anyway.This was one of the last Pre-Code films that were made.Barbara Stanwyck gives a very sexy performance as Lily.Other actors of this film include George Brent (Courtland Trenholm), Donald Cook (Ned Stevens), Alphonse Ethier (Adolf Cragg), Henry Kolker (J.P.Carter), Margaret Lindsay (Ann Carter) and Theresa Harris (Chico).The young John Wayne is seen as Jimmy McCoy Jr.This movie deals with a brave topic and it does it good.Baby Face is historically significant movie and therefore good to watch.
| 1
|
train_18695
|
Badly made. Dreadful acting and an ending that the Director appeared to contrive out of nowhere as the film had frankly been nothing short of dull. Shocking that this film is considered for an award at the Gijón Film Festival.Everyone that came out of the theatre was of the same opinion as I - what was the point of even making the film? The references to Iraq were either bizarre or just not thought through properly. I am astonished that this film has been given a release - very, very disappointing and a waste of my time. Sorry, terribly negative review but hopefully will deter some people from making the same mistake. What a pity we did not have a Q and A at the end of the film - now that could have been interesting.
| 0
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.