id
stringlengths 7
11
| text
stringlengths 52
10.2k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|---|
train_11324
|
I have to agree with everyone else that has posted.I watched it quite a while ago but I'll tell you, whenever I hear certain music from this anime I am reminded of the story, the beautiful animation, the characters and the feeling I got when watching it, and it does make me cry(such a happy yet sad feeling). I do however find that the love story in it felt alittle rushed and they didn't explain things properly but it didn't ruin any part of the viewing experience.I was into this anime so much that after the end I just had to do some research(and watch the ending a few more times) and I found all my answers and a whole lot more. I love how they configured historical legends to fit into this anime, it was amazing and just made me want to research a whole lot more.(I've always been very interested in certain historical figures associated with this anime)I do think it should have been a longer series but if this is all they had to work with then they pulled it off nicely. I'd recommend this to anyone who likes emotional anime with an excellent story, well built characters(some mysterious)and a bit of fantasy action.Also, even though this was based on a H-game it doesn't have any of that stuff in it and I actually prefer it this way.(I have no problem with mature anime, in most cases I prefer it)
| 1
|
train_13552
|
*****THIS REVIEW MAY HAVE SPOILERS - but that determination would be negligible in such a classic and well-known story*****The CINDERELLA story ranks as my favorite fairy tale. The world will never have enough of this wonderful tale.The problem is that everyone wants to tell their own version of the tale. This cannot work if the story deviates or attempts to throw some interesting ideas together with some magical photography and scrumptious looking production designs with poor direction and editing.This Cinderella story is more like an Ugly Duckling that never hatches or rather, is never transformed into a swan.All the production value that money can buy, cannot purchase good cinematic timing and dramatic development - or good acting.The entrance of Cinderella at the ball as so poorly done, there was no drama of anticipation nor excitement of discovery.The writing made me very nervous, too. The Prince Charming was the most undesirable of memory. Why would any girl want to marry a boorish, self-absorbed prince who disliked women? Turner's turn on the Stepmother role was an embarrassingly painful showing that demonstrated one-liners more than acting nuance.Even the Cinderella part held little interest or sympathy.Perhaps only one sentence will describe this attempt: So cheaply '90's,What MUST be mentioned and mentioned in shameful excess is the glorious photography, matte work and production design. It was a pleasure to peruse the landscapes, sets and settings as the story unfolded.For some Cinderella storytelling, go for two gems:1) Rodgers and Hammerstein's Cinderella Musical with Lesley Ann Warren. Even with the obvious stagey TV - 60's look to the sets, this is the best version on celluloid - bar none. An all star cast makes every effort to provide the highest entertainment. Engaging, diverting and memorable writing and music. This is the classic.2) Ever After- this Drew Barrymore gem maintains the historical perspective, alters the story line but not enough to derail the effective development of the salient points of this classic tale. The characters of the principals and of all of the supporting roles were written smartly and acted well.
| 0
|
train_11662
|
The Secret of Kells is one of the most unique, beautiful, and eye- popping animated films I have ever seen. Before watching this film, I was convinced that nothing could give Up a run for its money and that it was a shoo-in to win in this category, but I found in Kells a serious contender.The Secret of Kells tell the story of a young orphan named Brendan, who lives with his uncle, the Abbot of Kell. The Abbot is a loving guardian, but perhaps a bit too strict and much more concerned with fortifying the wall around the town from a coming attack by vikings than he is at nurturing the boy's imagination. When the legendary Brother Aidan (who looks surprisingly like Willie Nelson) shows up and takes the boy under his wing, Brendan goes on a journey into the woods and meets a lovely forest nymph named Aisling who takes a liking to him (and saves his life more than once). With Aisling's help, he attempts to save the town and help Brother Aidan complete the mystical book whichlegend has itcan turn dark into light.See my full review of The Secret of Kells at: http://theoscarsblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/movie-review-secret-of- kells.html
| 1
|
train_15738
|
Devil's Experiment: 1/10: Hardcore porn films fall into two categories those with a semblance of plot (Gee that is one lucky pizza boy) and those without (Anal Amateurs 36). Devil's Experiment falls solidly into the latter category. It is of course the horror version of hardcore porn. An almost completely plot less 43-minute wait for the money shot. Shot on video in 1985 it consists of three relatively non-descript Japanese boys torturing one fairly unattractive Japanese girl. The tortures range from the banal (slapping her 50 times, kicking her a hundred), the silly (tying her to an office chair and spinning her around), the fear factor (a bath of maggots and sheep guts) and finally the money shot. (A well executed eyeball piercing). That's it, no plot, no motive, just Blair Witch tree shots and torture. The girl looks bored and with the exception of yelling, "no one expects the Spanish Inquisition" during the office chair scene I was bored silly. Staring dumbfounded at the screen, waiting for the money shot. Just like hardcore porn.
| 0
|
train_17418
|
A wealthy Harvard dude falls for a poor Radcliffe chick much to the consternation of his strict father (Ray Milland).Syrupy, sugary, and most of all, sappy story about a battle of the 'classes' when rich-kid Ryan O'Neal brings home a waif of a librarian for his snobbish parents to ridicule. Ali MacGraw is the social derelict with the filthy mouth while John Marley plays her devout-Catholic father, but no one in the film is more annoying than O'Neal himself with his whimpering portrayal as Harvard's champion yuppie.Followed 8(!) years later by 'Oliver's Story'.
| 0
|
train_1889
|
My family has watched Arthur Bach stumble and stammer since the movie first came out. We have most lines memorized. I watched it two weeks ago and still get tickled at the simple humor and view-at-life that Dudley Moore portrays. Liza Minelli did a wonderful job as the side kick - though I'm not her biggest fan. This movie makes me just enjoy watching movies. My favorite scene is when Arthur is visiting his fiancée's house. His conversation with the butler and Susan's father is side-spitting. The line from the butler, "Would you care to wait in the Library" followed by Arthur's reply, "Yes I would, the bathroom is out of the question", is my NEWMAIL notification on my computer. "Arthur is truly "funny stuff"!
| 1
|
train_24002
|
This movie is painfully slow and has no plot. It conveys the lives of a group of laid off boatworkers. One of the older ones is sincere in his attempt to get a job. There may be some social commentary here, but, it is muddled as nobody is painted in a very sympathetic light.I do not understand why it had a 7.8 when I decided to watch it. I watched the whole tedious thing and built expectations for a huge redeeming payoff. No luck. The IMDb rating has always been such a good match for my tastes. Anything above 6.5 was worth watching.And my wife says Javier Barem does not even look good in this movie. He's not my type, so, my agreement does not mean much.Sigh. I give it a 1.
| 0
|
train_19188
|
This movie is pretty awful but I have some interesting information about it:It was filmed in 1976 at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, AZ, as well as at Oak Creek Canyon near Sedona, AZ. A good bulk of the extras in the film are then-drama students from NAU. I was a freshman there that year, minoring in theatre, but for some reason I didn't get involved with the production. I did however know several people who did and can supply this rather odd fact:There is a scene in this movie where two of the principals, as part of their hazing ritual, have to run naked into the woods. They are seen from behind in the movie, doing just that. The thing is, those aren't the actors at all but two guys I knew from the theatre department. The identity of these "stunt posteriors" will remain anonymous, at least to this website, unless they decide to, um, "reveal" themselves!
| 0
|
train_2525
|
Tony Hawk Underground came at a point where the series was really starting to lose its luster, Tony Hawk Pro Skater 4 did not live up to expectations and left the series really up in the air on what Neversoft and Activision could do with the series that would be different and interesting.Underground introduced the storymode, which was very cool because it made a whole new world for Tony Hawk Pro Skater fans. Another feature introduced which fans pretty much argued for and that was being able to get off the skateboard, which is nice because now you can actually climb, run, and do all sorts of new things.The levels are good, Neversoft also improved on an issue that started with Pro Skater 3 and that was the length of the level designs. The first two games for the PS1, N64 and Dreamcast were great because the levels were nice and long and some hidden features in some. Pro Skater 3 and 4 were shortened because of a handful of features that were added and really pushed the systems too their limits. In this version, they shortened those features, there isn't as many people wondering the streets, in fact there are almost none in some levels, and the graphics and the skating physics are toned down a little but not a lot.This game does have one con, the storymode is a little short, of course this is Neversofts first time doing this with Tony Hawk Pro Skater, so that is understandable. However, with that being said you will definitely finish this game within a day.Overall, a great addition that was very refreshing.
| 1
|
train_9969
|
Shawshank, Godfather, Pulp Fiction... all good films. Great films. But nothing, and I mean nothing lives up to the greatest Christmas movie of all, Santa Claus.The film is so great and has so many messages, I cried while watching it. Seriously, this is one of those movies you need to watch 10 times. When we see Pitch get told he will have to eat ice cream, we see the sadness in his eyes, and we feel the deep sorrow, and then we wonder... what is so bad about this ice cream? Is it implying that we as humans are treating ice cream as good when all it does is make us evil? Think movie makes you think.This movie has the best rendition of Santa Claus ever. Unlike other Santas, he is a normal person. We see him imprisoning children and spying on kids dreams, and we wonder; is the Santa we believe in really that good? Also, this Santa actually mentions Christ, the whole meaning behind Christmas.You owe yourself to watch this cinematic masterpiece. We should just stop making movies and air nothing but this epic 24/7. Whether it's Christmas or not, this movie gets a 500/10. Whoever says this movie is bad is an ignorant fool.
| 1
|
train_11496
|
Love this film also. Saw it when it was first shown i8n Germany in a small independent cinema in Frankfurt. It was really crowded and it was a very ambitious atmosphere to. The erotic of the movie hit the spectators and the discussion with Moritz Boerner the producer and director was always underlined by that. In his genre it was a very ambitious movie even especially when you think that it was an independent movie.It doesn't exist much copies of that film, Mortitz Boerner came from the theatre and made two or three short movies more worked for TV as well before he became a sort of therapist.For the people who wish to see that movie again, you could find it on his homepage which isn't that easy to search for but its possible.
| 1
|
train_15282
|
Just saw the movie this past weekend, I am upset, and disappointed with it. Basically, the movie tells you that immigrants, the ones from former Soviet Union especially, come to this country, bring everyone they can with them from the old country, and invade and take over what Americans have been working for. Which is a very wrong way of looking at immigration, and a much worse way of telling people about it. That's the main thing. Another thing, the overall writing, directing and filming is on the level of village amateurs. The actors did pretty well, but it wasn't up to them save this bunch of crap. A few jokes were funny, but most were bad and cheesy. Couldn't wait to get out of the theater, want my money back.
| 0
|
train_17668
|
If you are going to attempt building tension in a film it is always a good idea not to build it beyond the point of total tedium.Unfortunately the Butcher Brothers haven't grasped this yet.This film sucks, unlike the majority of its characters who (if you didn't work out they are vampires in the first few minutes then shame on you) preference stringing up the plentiful supply of 'no one knows where I am' cheerleader types and homosexual drifters that waft conveniently and with a fast food swagger, past their isolated door.The only tiny bit of originality in the plot is how these vampires come to be vampires in the first place but the rest of it is ludicrous and sloppy.Forced to up sticks (as opposed stakes) on a regular basis due to their penchant for filling their basement with bloodless corpses, they really are none too bright. If they fed their victims they could run their own little blood farm and it would cut down on the mortality rate, thereby allowing them to settle down and get chintzy.Why the producers felt it necessary to introduce the incestuous twins and the homicidally gay older brother I am not sure. It added zero to the plot, which was unfortunate given that there wasn't a great deal of plot to start with and had no shock value at all.One was never told why the parents had died, unless of course that was explained during one of my frequent tea breaks. Clearly the social worker must have been alerted to the family for some reason or other but again, it was for the viewer to write their own reason.The only well rounded character was the youngest brother who emerges looking like Pugsley from the Adams Family. Indeed he was way too rounded, having the appearance of a child who has inadvertently wandered from a Weight watchers' class in to a very bad horror film. Oh heavens, he had. Never mind dear, have another doughnut with a yummy blood centre.
| 0
|
train_24649
|
Set in Providence, Rhode Island, Feeding the Masses tries to be a satiric look at the role of the media in government. At best, it could be applied to how the US try to control media during the Iraq War, but it ends up feeling hollow. There's never any really tension in the story and the acting never very good. Worst, the direction of the movie is atrocious, focus more on odd camera angles that fail to convey anything beyond "Isn't this an odd way to hold the camera." Special effects are pretty bad...at one point video of an explosion is green screened over the city, and it's laughable at best.The film does have a couple bright spots...namely the advertisements for post-zombie services (including a reclamation service and a party bus). But it's far too little to make the film worthwhile.For a better zombie film, try Hide and Creep. It has the same weak production value, but there's much more wit, humor and talent behind it.
| 0
|
train_2936
|
If only Eddie Murphy were born 10 years later. Then we'd all remember it. But even I was only 4 when it came out. If you haven't seen it yet, rent Dr. Dolittle, Showtime, I spy, Pluto Nash and all Eddie's family comedy movies - then watch this. Hands down, you'll laugh 90% of the time. The other 10% you'll be wiping the tears from your eyes.It really needs to be watched more then once to understand all the jokes. From crude humor to a joke for kids!(if you've seen it you'll laugh here) - you'll love his stuff. If you can, (or are a big fan) try to download clips from Eddie's acts. Allot of the shows are different as you'd imagine and he has even more funny jokes.But this is like the "best of" Eddie Murphy 'X-rated' if you will.And all I can say is please don't watch Delirious if you don't like comedy, don't have a sense of humor or are not fun to hang out with. You will only put down this great Eddie Murphy classic and possibly make someone miss out on it.If you wanna know how Eddie got Beverly Hills Cop and got famous from it- Delirious is it.
| 1
|
train_2872
|
In my opinion, this is an absolutely romantic Disney masterpiece. If you ask me, the stepmother (voice of Lucille La Verne) was truly diabolical. You'll have to see the movie if you want to know why. On the other hand, despite the fact that she did a lot of housekeeping, Cinderella (voice of Ilene Stanley) was a very beautiful lady. To me, the scenery was beautiful, the cast was well chosen, and the writing was strong. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that everyone involved in this film did very well. Now, in conclusion, I highly recommend this absolutely romantic Disney masterpiece to all of you who haven't seen it. You're in for a good time, so go to the video store, rent it or buy it, kick back with a friend, and watch it.
| 1
|
train_3847
|
In it's time, this movie had controversy written all over it (like most of Verhoeven's projects).Containing very graphic depictions death-scenes; A parachute that doesn't open *smack* guys body on the floor. A guy being eaten by a Lion *chomp* teeth in the throat. And a guy being run over by a speedboat *zoom* bloody corpse going down.But besides gore, this flick also contains some brilliant (and stunningly beautiful) scenes, filmed in the gray fisher's town that is Vlissingen;Thousands of rosebuds flying over the screen, in a somewhat irrelevant part of the movie, a beautiful (holy) woman putting flowers in a milk-can, surrounded by slabs of blood-dripping meat and a steamy love scene between two male characters, in a graveyard.The story is concluded in a frantic, but fulfilling 10 minutes, that don't disappoint, and will leave you sighing a breath of relief.Of course with the pros come the cons, Some special-effects are too over-the-top, and are obviously done to see how far Verhoeven could push the gore-factor (e.g. the several eyeballs hanging out of their sockets). Also, while the two lead actors, (Jeroen Krabbé and Renée Soutendijk), do an excellent job of breathing life into their characters, the character of Herman (portrayed by the rather un-charming Thom Hoffman) just feels enormously underdeveloped, making him hard to care for, even after his tragic death.I've done my best to give you a slight idea of what to expect of this amazing movie, and as you can see, it's not easily summed up in words. So do yourself a favor, if you happen to find this movie somewhere, watch it ! And enjoy the unique style and substance of this masterpiece.
| 1
|
train_3784
|
One of the most underrated movies I've seen in a long time, Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey is the second hilarious adventure of Bill S. Preston Esq. and Ted Theodore Logan, aka Wyld Stallyns. There are two ways to look at this film: First, you see dumb dialogue, far fetched plot, juvenile idea. OR.. You see brilliantly downplayed idiots who yet again find themselves in a situation too big for their brains. Throw a Bruce Willis or a Arnold Schwarzeneggar into this plot and it becomes a big blockbuster movie. Bill and Ted go into the story with the same level of sincerity, only it's Bill and Ted. This is a tricky fence to balance on, but when you watch the movie not as a throwaway screwball comedy, but as an adventure featuring two guys who have no business being in an adventure, it becomes so much more.
| 1
|
train_20857
|
Man oh man! What a piece of crummy film-making! But this is a guilty pleasure from my childhood even though I hate to admit it. They showed this movie on my basic cable system all the time. Where I grew up in San Jose, California (right on the border of Cupertino) we had this thing called The G Channel on our cable system. And they basically showed the same one movie over and over and over again. Wanda Nevada was one of those movies. I fell in lust and love with the young Brooke Shields and loved her dopey adventures in the Grand Canyon in the 1940s. The script makes almost no sense, the direction is poor, the few highlights are that Henry Fonda makes an appearance, a lot of dialog that's so bad it's good and a nice Carole King song played over the end credits. Maybe you have to be stoned to truly enjoy this flick. And hey, everybody knows there ain't no gold in the Grand Canyon!
| 0
|
train_8242
|
I watched FIDO on some movie channel and I have to say that I've become an instant fan. The film feels like a comic book that perfectly captures the look and feel of the surreal 1950s, you know the wholesome decade when they danced to Elvis while dropping nuclear bombs in the desert just for the heck of it. People were so naive back then that it's frightening and the idea that those clean cut folks would find it normal to have zombies as pets actually works here.Kudos to this Canadian production, the colorful crisp cinematography and the excellent cast, including Carrie Anne Moss, Billy Connolly, Henry Czerny and the kid.It's a shame this film wasn't a bigger hit. It deserved more recognition. It's much better than the stuff from Tim Burton or the SHAUN OF THE DEAD team. Oh well. It's an instant classic nonetheless.
| 1
|
train_18953
|
There's hardly anything at all to recommend this movie. Chase Masterson is always nice to look at and actually can act, though her role in this clunker is a waste. Unfortunately the rest of the cast ranges from bad to mediocre. In a lot of films like this someone will shine through the material and you make a note of them for future reference. No such luck here. Creature Unknown" a clichéd monster-on-the-loose flick with the kids getting knocked off one after the other. The monster is a man in a rubber suit which hearkens back to the days of Paul Blaisdell. So bad it's good! The rest of the show is just so bad it's bad. A little humor might have made this more palatable, but everyone plays the deadly dull material straight up. There is a twist or two at the end, but by then you won't care anymore.
| 0
|
train_17828
|
Susan Seidelman seems to have had a decent career with a few top notch credits under her belt. I'm certainly glad she bounced back from this film which seems to have its admirers. I'm not one of them.I've seen better acting in high school plays than I did in Smithereens. The plot such as it is involved young Susan Berman who is ambitious to make it in the world of music and is willing to do just about anything to get there. She even rejects the sincere advances of a young artist who is living out of his van off the East River played by Brad Rijn.Young Mr. Rijn contributes the worst performance in the film, in fact one of the worst acting jobs I've seen in a long time. No wonder he's not gone anywhere.I will say that Seidelman's eye for the camera is a good one in capturing the familiar East Village locations where the film was mostly shot. But her work with her live performers didn't measure up. I'm not sure she had that much raw material to work with.Look fast and you'll see a very young Christopher Noth before Law and Order and Sex in the City as a street hustler.If you like punk rock, you might sit through this for the soundtrack. I'll stick to Bing Crosby.
| 0
|
train_3341
|
I saw this movie on Thursdays night after having a really boring day. I had no expectations, those I had were rather negative. Being that the only movie I've ever watched Jimmy in is the American version of Taxi with Queen Latifah(?)...don't ask why! But seriously..this movie is so cute! Drew Barrymore is always sweet, but I almost fell in love with Fallon's character. Why can't I meet a cute nerd like that. :) Movies like that are excellent. Simple, sweet and necessary. Sunday on a Thursdays. I'm not even a sports fan, but it's something about American movies with baseball that fascinates me. Probably the fact that we don't have that sport here in Norway.(My first comment ever.) Haha
| 1
|
train_18492
|
The most embarrassing moment in this film is when Brady Corbet says 'You've blossomed', near the end the film. I practically died. I'm still not really sure why the screenwriters put that line in there. Was it supposed to create romance? Because it nearly made me sick. The rest of the script was almost as bad.I've never liked the original Thunderbirds, but a Thunderbirds movie had the potential to do so much. This movie doesn't. If it didn't have the big draw card of the Thunderbirds brand, it would have been shafted straight to TV, or canned in the post-production. Maybe even before. Like I said, the best thing about the movie is when the credits roll up and they play Busted's song 'Thunderbirds are go'. I can't believe I wasted $7 watching this through pay-per-view.
| 0
|
train_7749
|
This movie blows you off your feet. This debut movie from Tom Barman (known from the Belgian rock band dEUS) introduces you to 8 intriguing people, building blocks of a compelling movie mosaic. They each survive one day and one night in the metropole of Antwerp. Barman paints his characters with great deal of verve and competently interweaves their individual stories, a tour the force that reminds of the best work of Robert Altman and Paul Thomas Anderson. The patchwork of anecdotes surprises, moves, amuses; the dialogues are so natural, they seem to be improvised. Some great performances by Matthias Schoenaerts, Natali Broods and the extremely funny duo from Ghent, Jonas Boel and Titus De Voogdt. Sam Louwyck is the memorable "Windman", a bizarre guy dancing throughout the movie. Sam is also responsible for the stunning choreography, and of course Tom Barman himself took care of the ultra cool Sound Track. We were seriously impressed: Any Way The Wind Blows is a movie that blows you off your feet.
| 1
|
train_5319
|
Forget that this is a "B" movie. Forget that it is in many ways outdated. Instead give writer-director Ida Lupino much deserved credit for addressing a subject which at the time (1950) was taboo in Hollywood. To my knowledge, this was the first film to address the subject of rape and the emotional and mental effects that that crime has upon its victims.Although much of the cast's acting is pedestrian at best, Mala Powers, who at the time was eighteen or nineteen, gives an excellent performance throughout as the traumatized young woman, Ann, who tries to run away from her "shame." Based on her work in this film, I'm surprised that she did not have a more successful acting career. Tod Andrews, too, has some fine moments as the minister who reaches out to help her.Ms Lupino, obviously working on a limited budget, was still able to create some memorable scenes such as the pursuit through the streets and alleys leading to the rape, and the police lineup following it. And, she created a bittersweet ending which left me wondering if Ann really could ever have a normal life again.
| 1
|
train_13051
|
I've been going through the AFI's list of the top 100 comedies, and I must say that this is truly one of the worst. Not just of the 90 movies on the list I've seen, but of any movie I've ever seen. Drunks are funny sometimes, Dudley isn't. Liza almost made it worthwhile, but alas... just go watch Arrested Development if you want to see her in something good. Seriously, Dudley laughing and drinking is supposed to be funny? I would highly recommend almost ANY other movie on the AFI's top 100 comedies for more laughs than this. If you want to see a funnier "drunk", try The Thin Man. Funnier movie in general, any Marx Brothers movie will kill (especially if you're as drunk as Arthur).
| 0
|
train_205
|
First, an explanation: Despite my headline, I'm giving this film only 8 stars because overall this is NOT one of the best films ever made. All the criticisms registered here have valid points. Also, be warned that to enjoy the script you really need to appreciate Neil Simon's brilliance with finding the wit within real human banter. He does have a distinctively New York ear for dialogue -- especially dry, Jewish, love-suffused sarcasm -- and if you have trouble accepting sarcasm as an expression of love, then you might have trouble accepting the optimism at the heart of this movie.So much for warnings. Here's my main point: Walter Matthau is flat-out perfect, even beyond perfect, in this movie. I have never seen him funnier, or more touching for that matter -- because at the same time that he shows us the hilariousness of this character who refuses to give up his Big Star self-image or insufferable attitudes even as his coherence is in decline, he also shows us the more vulnerable, maybe even heartbreakingly scared person inside the grouch. And he only barely shows us that sad part -- it's just enough to really get to you if you happen to be coping with your own father's or husband's mental decline right now (I mention this as a warning), but artistically, it's just enough pathos to give this character the most authentically deep roots I'm seen in possibly any film performance. This is beyond Method acting -- Matthau's performance is exquisite as character work and a pure delight as comic delivery. This is a masterpiece of comic acting.About Richard Benjamin: I personally find his acting annoying in general, and his work in this movie is no exception -- although he has some fine moments here. ("Chicken is funny...." is one of them.) So if you like him, you should like him here, and if you don't this movie won't change your mind.About the 1976 Oscars...I agree that Matthau was unfortunate to be up against Nicholson in "Cuckoo's Nest" that year. It was a killer year for leading-actor competition; if only there were separate Oscars for comedy and drama, then I think the Best Actor Oscars would have gone to Al Pacino for "Dog Day Afternoon" and to Walter Matthau for "The Sunshine Boys" -- not to dis Jack's fine work as McMurphy, but I think that Pacino and Matthau were each CLEARLY more masterful and astoundingly effective and downright legendary in their performances than Nicholson was that year. Also, I believe that Burns got the Supporting Actor Oscar more for sentimental reasons than for the quality of his performance -- I mean, he was good in this movie, but not THAT good. (Burns's fine-as-ever but unexceptional-in-itself return to show biz beat Brad Dourif's truly brilliant debut in "Cuckoo's Nest," not to mention Chris Sarandon's stunning debut in "Dog Day Afternoon" -- which I think proves my theory.) Oscar theories aside, here's my bottom line review: If you like Matthau's comic acting, then see this movie and savor his powerhouse tirades and wonderful grandmother-inspired gestures, fleeting facial expressions and seemingly unscripted asides. (But if you're currently dealing with the pain of watching an old person lose his grip, then be warned that this movie might either be the comic relief you need or a dose of reality too painful to watch right now.)
| 1
|
train_18230
|
Where to even start? The horrendous acting? The nonsensical plot? The bargain basement effects? The completely loathsome characters? The choppy editing? The headache-inducing Casio keyboard score??? The embarrassingly racist remarks ("Watch it, Charlie!", "Back off, Jackie Chan!!"??? The constant misogyny??? I am a lifelong horror fan, and I have no problem at all with the current "torture-thon" trend of movies. However, this is a poorly-made piece of garbage. I think I suffered more pain watching this than the characters did dying in it! If you like girls being forced to eat stir-fried penis, really poor soft core porn and think lines like "I'm gonna find that b**** and staple her c*** shut!!" are clever, LIVE FEED is for you.As for me, I feel the need to go wash my eyes out with oven cleaner to prevent from ever seeing this movie again!
| 0
|
train_8477
|
in a not so conventional sense of the word.This movie was one of my favorites as a young child, and I just recently remembered it, and thought to look it up. While many of the details are no longer clear in my mind, the overall feeling that the movie gave me has stuck with me over the years.If parents feel that their children can handle mature and sometimes violent themes, then I highly recommend this movie. It taught me a lot about life and death, and brought forth in me a lot of emotion. To this day, it remains one of my favorite films.
| 1
|
train_10970
|
Fascinating yet unsettling look at Edith Bouvier Beale (Big Edie) and her daughter (Little Edie) aunt and first cousin to the late Jacquelyn Kennedy Onasis. They live in a rodent infested, rundown mansion which was considered a health hazard by the city. It becomes quite clear very quickly that these two are well past eccentric. Little Edie seems to be the most off as she acts with the mindset of a ten year old even though she is actually 53. The content is pretty much made up of two things. The first are the conversations were Little Edie lambastes Big Edie for driving away all her potential suitors and ruining her aspiring career as writer, actress, and dancer. These discussions usually become very rhetorical, nonsensical, and often times amusing. The second part consists of long bouts of attempted singing by both parties. Each of course thinks their singing is perfect and it's only the other who sounds bad. In one amazing scene Big Edie actually physically attacks Little Edie with her cane just to get her to stop her warbling. Very captivating yet one gets the feeling that their is some serious exploitation going on here and the subjects are just too far gone to know it. The filmmakers seem to treat this like a freak show at the circus, coming each day to record (and chuckle) at whatever bizarre behavior may come about. Ultimately this is a sad picture as it shows how the world has simply past these two by. Their hopes and dreams as decayed as the mansion they live in. Despite their bickering these two need each other more than ever. For without the other there would be no refuge from the loneliness. Most amazing line comes from Big Edie whose many cats relieve themselves throughout her bedroom. Her response to a complaint about the smell is simply unbelievable.
| 1
|
train_18441
|
As a fan of Notorious B.I.G., I was looking forward to this movie. I am unfortunate to see it is a terrible movie. Jamal Woodward is not convincing or realistic enough to portray Notorious B.I.G. A lot of the story follows Notorious B.I.G.'s real son, Christopher Jordan Wallace as Notorious B.I.G. as a kid. Unfortunately, he is not convincing enough to pay tribute to his father. Derek Luke is just as unconvincing as Sean "Puffy" Combs. In a nutshell, no one is convincing enough to play their roles here. The big problem with this are these are actual people they are playing. It was boring, and did not give any information about Notorious B.I.G. that fans and non-fans alike did not already know. I was especially disappointed with Angela Bassett, a very good actress wasted here as Voletta Wallace. The movie slugs and slugs along thinking that Notorious B.I.G. fans will spend tons of money on it. I am unfortunate to say that that happened. It's nowhere close to a good movie. I was expecting so much out of it, but unfortunately I didn't get anything I wanted from this. I think you should definitely skip this one.
| 0
|
train_18107
|
I sat through this movie expecting a thought-provoking, fact-based film. But instead was given some of the least thought out arguments against the Christian faith imaginable. For instance, in an effort to prove that Christianity is inherently violent, the narrator constantly quotes the bible without giving context, and thus altering the meaning of the text. Jesus is quoted as commanding the execution of those who disobey him, when in fact, the quote is from a parable Jesus told, involving a king who is then quoted. Thus the narrator makes it appear as if Jesus says one thing when he is actually telling a story where one of his characters says it. This is dishonesty in a very obvious form. Is this really what Atheism has to offer the world? This film also attempts to use the success of the Passion of the Christ over Jesus Christ: Superstar and The Last Temptation of the Christ as evidence that Christians are bloodthirsty. He makes no mention of the fact that the Passion was the most historically accurate Bible-film to date. He makes no mention of the fact that it was actually the best liked by critics of the bunch. He then edits in a series of violent images from the Passion as if to hammer home his point. Ironically, he makes no mention of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre which came out a few months later and plays violence for entertainment, versus dramatic effect.One thing that really bothered me was his mockery of people who actually knew more about the subject matter than he did. All the Christians he interviewed were average schmoes in the parking lot of Billy Graham's New York Crusade. Atheists he interviewed for the film were notable authors and scholars. He asked the Christians how the Christian movement started, and of course, they said it started with the Holy Spirit coming to the disciples at Pentecost. Which is correct (Acts 2). He then gives the commentary, "isn't it funny how so few Christians seem to know the origins of their own faith?" and proceeds to explain that the apostle Paul started Christianity after being stopped on the road to Damascus. The poor chap seems convinced that Acts 9 happens before Acts 2. More deception? Or is this simply ignorance? He also throws around nonsense that Paul didn't believe Jesus was a real person. Are you kidding me? 1 Corinthians 15 describes Jesus death and resurrection being witnessed by people (whom Paul names in the passage) for the Corinthians to question if they are in doubt!There are many many other examples of how full of crap this 'documentary' is. But because I don't have time or patience to go into them all, I'll skip straight to the end. It's obvious throughout the whole movie that the narrator has an emotional vendetta against his upbringing in the church. And the climax interview is HIS CHILDHOOD PRINCIPLE! In a last-ditch attempt to disprove the Christian faith, the narrator tries to make a fool out of someone who gave him a detention as a child. Is this what passes as an intellectual documentary for the Atheist community? Surely there are intelligent Atheist filmmakers out there who can make a documentary that isn't a load of made-up crap passed off as 'facts'.
| 0
|
train_22200
|
I agree with most of the other guys. A waste of photons and valuable time.Nearly no joke is worth the paper is was written on. The only highlight from my pov is Olli Dittrich as Pinocchio. ("Egal, ich muss eh Waldsterben") This reminds of old times with RTL Samstag Nacht. It is hard to describe the performances of the actors, since most of them don't even seem to have a good time during production and just "do their thing". Camera is OK, plot is laughable, I think you would be ashamed even if you discuss this with lots of beers.Apart from this I yawned all the time, wondered about how a script like this could even be considered for production and waited for the end.My 9 year old son was pleased, but then he is pleased by so little at this age :-)Anyway, a 1 point rating here nearly is 1 point too much...
| 0
|
train_935
|
This version of the Charles Dickens novel features George C Scott as the Scrooge. Fine casting, especially the choice of Scott, who plays the role to the hilt..a fine cast supports him in the very good adaption. A Modern day holiday classic on a scale of one to ten..9
| 1
|
train_5606
|
This is a very difficult movie, and it's almost impossible to get a handle on what's going on. At first it seems to be a rather pedestrian movie about a guy (Trelkovsky) who needs an apartment and rather crassly invites himself into one when the current tenant (a woman) commits suicide. Then the twists and turns start. Are the neighbors trying to kill him? And why are the dead tenant's clothes turning up in the apartment? One wonders, finally, if Trelkovksy _is_ the prior tenant. SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER One of the tricks Polanski pulls on us is to lie to us. We assume when we see things from the point of view of a character that we see things as the character does and that there may be distortions of reality. We assume when the camera is showing us things from its omniscient point of view that we see actuality - but Polanski has the camera lie to us.
| 1
|
train_15720
|
I absolutely hate it when a film completely falls apart near the end, after you've already invested an hour into it. and that's what happened with this film. i was intrigued by its actors and the fact that malamud wrote its source story. I haven't gone to read that story but I cannot imagine that it ends like this film ends.Fortunately i didn't pay good money to see or rent it because my library had it. ohhhh such a waste of excellent acting (the wife in particular was so perfect).but milo o'shea as a Jew?!!!! now THAT was funny. I haven't researched into its making but it played like the director lost his marbles or died 3/4 of the way through the film. Before that point, a story and characters were developing,there were a number of neat plot points and there wasn't too much time wasted. but ooh that last 1/2 hour- if that wasn't the screwiest, most worthless denouement I've ever witnessed, I don't know what is. I just hate it when one's faith is so destroyed like that; it feels like an act of violence.
| 0
|
train_9245
|
Jean Harlow and Clark Gable were a great on screen team and this may be their best movie together.Yes, Hold Your Man can be cheesy and predictable, but that's not what I love about the movie. I love seeing Harlow and Gable together and in this film they are simply wonderful. It is obvious that they really enjoyed working together and that is part of what makes this such a wonderful film.The witty dialogue, great script and attention to detail are the other things that make this such a good movie. I loved this movie the first time I saw it and on each subsequent viewing I always notice at least one new detail. To me, that is a mark of a great film.The dialogue and script are better than most movies from this time period (early 30's). I adore classic movies, but I admit that most of them are just average and at times don't hold my interest. Hold Your Man is one of the exceptions.This has a lot to do with the fact that Hold Your Man is a 'pre-code' movie. (The Hays code was not enforced until a year after Hold Your Man.) This movie could not have been made under the code. Well, it could have been made, but it would have been an entirely different story. Thank goodness the code was not enforced until 1934. Otherwise, we would have missed out on this gem.
| 1
|
train_23737
|
I went to see this film with low expectations, but hoping to be charmed by seeing my home town on film. Sadly, that's about all I got. The story covers familiar territory (the high school reunion), but the plot is convoluted and supernatural element adds little to this well-worn theme. Though the quality of the acting was good overall, the content of the film was appalling. The sexism of the film was blatant--women are apparently unfulfilled unless they are married, procreating or both (though this was couched as a post-feminist choice ). Worse still was the racism--the shrill Jewish mother, the black man who still lives at home-- and gratuitous cruelty (tormenting the class geek). We should be ashamed if these characters are thought to represent the inhabitants of the city of Kalamazoo, and the writers should be abashed at having brought such broad and cruel stereotypes to the screen.
| 0
|
train_3875
|
This movie has been made by one of the most absurd humorists in Canada, Yves P. Pelletier. I was shocked for a second that he made a ROMANTIC comedy, but knowing he was a heavy cinephile, was seen in every local festival and in the local cinematheque, I had a positive feeling about this movie.Hell, I was right. Right off the bat, the scenario (written by Pelletier himself) is a bit twisted and hard to follow, but, in Pelletier's fashion it's a one-of-a-kind 90 minutes jack-in-the-box.Loosely inspired and mostly transformed allusion to Dangerous Liaisons (by Laclos) "Les Aimants" consists of a twisted game of writing notes on the fridge. Throughout the movie you'll get the occasion to find out who's who and who's writing to who on that goddam fridge....which pops up in an interesting love affair.Great storyline, great photography, great quotations of other movies. Should we ask more for a first movie?
| 1
|
train_20772
|
At the end of "Dragon Heat," all I could think of was why I bothered sitting through the whole thing.The film's premise is interesting and that - as well as Maggie Q - is what attracted me to the film in the first place. But was I ever disappointed. Writer-director Daniel Lee can't hold a candle to the likes of John Woo, Ringo Lam and Corey Yuen.This has to be one of the most annoyingly-directed films I have ever seen. Lee is so wrapped up in his visual style - and I use that phrase incredibly loosely - that he fills the film with completely needless black-and-white stills, freeze frames, slow-motion, fast-motion and other visual nonsense. I suppose he did all that to make up for the lack of a good story or dialogue.The action scenes are nothing special and play out like some hopped-up music video more than anything else. There is little to care about any of the characters - including two supposedly professional snipers who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside! - who are then laden with some of the cheesiest dialogue I have seen in one of these Hong Kong actioners.The plot is devoid of any twists and turns - from the initial set-up, everything unfolds in predictable fashion - and Lee feels the need to keep reminding us of the characters' back stories in case we didn't get it the first several times. This is awfully amateurish writing and film-making and wastes the talents of Sammo Hung, Michael Biehn and Maggie Q. Though, to be frank, I am hard-pressed to remember Biehn being in any good film that was not directed by James Cameron.If you really are in the mood for a great Hong Kong actioner, you are much better off sticking to some of the staples - John Woo's "The Killer" (1989) and "Hard-Boiled" (1992), Ringo Lam's "City on Fire" (1987) - which Quentin Tarantino stole for "Reservoir Dogs" (1992) - or his "Point Blank" (1967) remake, "Full Contact" (1992). Or, even check out Yuen's "So Close" (2002), a supremely entertaining, yet preposterous, popcorn flick. And there's always the terrific French police actioner, "The Nest" (2002).True, most, if not all, are a bit over-the-top, but they were films that remain exciting, thrilling and even suspenseful. They have characters we care about and mind-blowing action sequences."Dragon Heat," on the other hand, is just terribly mediocre. The trouble is that Lee has not made a bad action film, he has made a dull one.
| 0
|
train_4259
|
Solino really moved me with its deeply drawn characters. While being a simple tale of rivalry between two brothers, it was not simply about hate or jealousy. What I liked most about the movie was how I could identify with the feelings Gigi was going through especially when he had to take his mother back to her home town in Italy and miss out on attending the festival film awards ceremony his film was entered into. To see this character who struggled so hard between his artistic dream and his innate sense of duty to his mother was so frustrating. Even at the end when he makes one more attempt to reach out to his father was so brave. And as in real life, most fathers can never get past their walls to reach out to their children. I could even identify with Giancarlo, the brother, who while being the more self assured and elder brother, had so many insecurities. A really beautiful film that made me laugh and cry.
| 1
|
train_21560
|
Channel surfing and caught this on LOGO. It was one of those "I have to watch this because it's so horribly bad" moments, like Roadhouse without the joy. The writing is atrocious; completely inane and the acting is throw-up-in-your-mouth bad.There's low budget and then there is the abyss which is where this epic should be tossed and never seen from again. I mean, the main characters go to a ski retreat in some rented house and the house is, well, ordinary which is no big deal, but they choose to show all the houseguests pouring over it like it was the Sistine Chapel. I'm sorry but watching 6 guys stare into every 10'x10' boring room with a futon in it and gushing is lame. I guess they didn't learn anything from the Bad News Bears in Breaking Training (see hotel room check scene)...wow a toilet !!! yaayyyyy !!!! I don't buy the its all over the top so anything goes routine. If it smells like...and it looks like...well, you know the rest.Avoid like the plague.edit: Apparently other more close minded reviewers believe that since I disliked this movie, I am an "obvious hater" which I can only assume means I am phobic, which of course is not true. I decided to do this wacky, crazy thing and judge the movie based on the actual content of the film and not by its mere presence (i.e. its refreshing to see...)Sure, it may be refreshing to see but that doesn't equate into a great movie, just give them some better material to work with and tighter direction. In fact, I applaud the effort. Frankly, I'd rather go listen to my Kitchens of Distinction catalogue than watch this again.
| 0
|
train_24615
|
I've been working my way through a collection of Lugosi films recently, and having just been blown away a couple of days ago by the combination of Lugosi and Boris Karloff in "The Black Cat" I was really looking forward to seeing their collaboration in "The Raven." Alas, it just didn't work for me, and by the end of the film I was quite disappointed.For the first three quarters of this movie or so I thought the story lacked any real suspense. Lugosi was doing a pretty good job of holding things together as the somewhat mad Dr. Vollins, some sort of surgical genius who falls in love with a young woman (Irene Ware) he treats after a car accident but who can't have her - partly because she's already engaged, and partly because her father (Samuel S. Hinds) disapproves. To deal with that situation, he enlists the aid of Edmond Bateman (Boris Karloff) - a horribly ugly man who wants Vollins to make him look more acceptable. Aside from Lugosi's performance, though, I found little to hold my interest. Then, suddenly, in the last fifteen or twenty minutes, the movie shifts around completely. Suddenly it becomes quite suspenseful, but I thought Lugosi's performance fell apart, largely because the movie tried to shift him from mad to insane - and there's a difference. He plays the "mad" role very well - controlled and in control but evil. "Insane" is a more out of control evil, and I didn't think Lugosi pulled that off well. At one point, he offers some maniacal laughter which just comes across as fake. In the meantime, Karloff was a huge disappointment. He never grabbed me at all. As an aside, it must have grated on Lugosi that - in movies in which they co-star - Karloff gets the top billing, even though in "The Raven" it's clearly Lugosi who is the lead actor. This surely gives a hint as to how Universal ranked their two great horror stars - inexplicably, I would add, because I've always thought of Lugosi as the better actor of the two.In any event, there's no real connection here to Edgar Allen Poe's story "The Raven" - except that Vollins is a Poe fanatic, who tries to recreate some of the torture techniques from Poe's stories. Overall, a disappointment. 4/10.
| 0
|
train_13341
|
I just watched this film 15 minutes ago, and I still have no idea what I just watched. Mainly I think it's a film about an internet S&M "star" of CD Roms that are about as realistic as flash cartoons online. She's murdered by someone, which causes her sister and a crack team of 2 FBI agents to investigate the death. The local homicide division of Big City, USA is also investigating, though most of his work comes by the way of oogling the CD ROMs which he claims are as realistic "as the real thing". I know. Wow.Michael Madsen is the only one in the film that has any kind of credits behind him. He's in the film for about 15 minutes, and half of that is him banging the main girl for seemingly no apparent reason. I won't even explain the ending, because quite frankly I can't make it out myself. But before the final scene, we're treated to a 3 or 4 minute montage of everything in the film. Honestly, they could have ran that then the final scene and it would have been the same effect with the cross eyed direction and all.All in all, stay away from this film. I got it because I love bad movies and I love Michael Madsen. I really could have used that 80 some minutes on something else and have been more satisfied. Like, playing that game with a knife where you jab at your hand repeatedly. That for 80 minutes would be much more entertaining.
| 0
|
train_15235
|
I thought it was not the best re-cap episode I've every seen (though my viewing partner handed me a tissue in anticipation of the Brendan Fraser moment...*sigh*). It was nice to see Cox outside of the incessantly brittle "Coxism State" he is in these days, if only for brief moments. I also enjoyed trying to place the episodes included by the length of the character's hair (or height, in case of JD) and the youthfulness of the earliest episodes. I can also see how Zach might be well on the way to a very Chevy Chase/or is that Matthew Perry? prat-fall induced chemical slide (already acknowledged on Conan). A little side note, the song (now stuck in my head) from the janitor-induced dance montage was "Diner" by Martin Sexton.
| 0
|
train_1756
|
''The 40 Year Old Virgin'''made me laugh a lot. I don't care if it is considered to be a very sexual comedy, I just enjoyed many of the jokes and scenes present in this movie. Steve Carell is perfect as the virgin nerd Andy Stitzer and I think the scene where Andy has his chest hair removed by wax one of the coolest, specially because it is real. Many of the actors and actresses present in this movie are well known or already famous,by the way.Andy Stitzer has a peaceful life. He is a little bit strange and collects lots of toys, but seems harmless. One day, while playing poker with his friends of his work, they discover that Andy is in fact...virgin! And he is already 40 years old! After this surprising revelation, all his friends are trying to make Andy sleep with a woman...the problem is the confusions in which Andy gets in,specially now that he is really starting to like Trish, a woman he met when she was buying a DVD player in the store he works at.
| 1
|
train_1549
|
There are movies, and there are films. Movies are more often than not merely cinematic "candy," whereas films are true works of art. Fraulein Doktor is certainly well-placed in the latter. As most viewers, I was highly impressed with the battle scenes, but the poignancy of the portrayal of the central character is what I consider to be the most sterling quality of the film. Having done everything possible to serve her country as a true daughter of Deutschland, all the while in the throes of morphine addiction, die Fraulein is treated very shabbily by the German high command despite all of her efforts. The scene in which the Doktor is being conveyed in the rear seat of a Mercedes Benz command auto, alone, desolate, and sobbing is perhaps one of the saddest yet truest depictions of a "spy's" lot in life. Only the emotional pain presented by Richard Burton in the Spy Who Came in from the Cold comes close. Fraulein Doktor is a far deeper film than one may realize upon a singular viewing. I only wish that its producers would see fit to release it on DVD so that those who have never experienced it can, and those who have seen it can again (perhaps again and again)enjoy this exceptional motion picture.
| 1
|
train_343
|
Katherine Heigl, Marley Shelton, Denise Richards, David Boreanaz. Even before I knew what this film was about, these names were enough to draw me in. Gorgeous, talented and popular, these are performers to look out for.Ok, where do I start. We already know what the film is about. Five beautiful girls being targeted by a 'romantic' serial slasher, a guy they all turned down at the school dance 13 years ago. His trademarks include subtle deaththreats disguised as valentine cards, maggot-infested chocolates and a bleeding nose. His weapon of choice: well, take a pick - axe, knife, electric powerdrill, bow and arrow, hot iron, etc. Ok, so basically it's a horror movie with a nice twisted sense of sexuality.Horror movies aren't supposed to be Shakespeare, but I'm not gonna go there. I love horror movies, but not all of them. This one, I adore. It's up there with some of my other favorites. It's funny, sexy and scary. The killer's mask is childishly creepy, and seeing cupid firing a bow and arrow at a victim is really freaky. The acting is topnotch: Denise Richards, Marley Shelton and David Boreanaz are a lot of fun. I really did wish to see much, much more of Katherine Heigl. I am one of her biggest fans and would love to see her doing some leading work soon. Jessica Capshaw is a very capable actress, and Jessica Cauffiel gets to do the ditzy blonde role she perfected in Urban Legend 2. The smaller parts were also good; Hedy Buress was a hoot ('bleedmedry.com') and that younger version of Denise Richards looked frightfully like her.Highlights: Every death scene had a particular distinction to it. The creepiest being the opening scene in the morgue. The hottub scene, while ludicrous, was well done. And the audiovisual maze was sinister. The soundtrack is great, with creepy music and some fine alternative tunes.Lowpoint: I felt as though the killer wasn't featured enough, we barely saw the mask, and it wasn't featured at all during the climax. I also thought the climax was really unfocused, but fun nonetheless.The twist at the end wasn't that big of a surprise, but I'm really glad that the filmmakers decided to spare us that whole 'explaining killer' routine.I don't like to tell people which movies they should see, but if someone asked me to pick a horror movie that I thought was really worth seeing, then Valentine would be it.My rating: 10/10 (Bullseye!)
| 1
|
train_7581
|
Following the brilliant "Goyôkiba" (aka. "Hanzo The Razor - Sword Of Justice", 1972) and its excellent (and even sleazier) sequel "Goyôkiba: Kamisori Hanzô jigoku zeme" (aka. "Razor 2: The Snare", 1973), this "Goyôkiba: Oni no Hanzô yawahada koban" aka. "Razor 3: Who's Got The Gold" is the third, and sadly final installment to the awesome saga about the incorruptible Samurai-constable Hanzo 'The Razor' Ittami (brilliantly played by the great Shintarô Katsu), who fights corruption with his fighting expertise as well as his enormous sexual powers. As a big fan of 70s exploitation cinema made in Nippon, "Sword Of Justice" became an instant favorite of mine, and I was therefore more than eager to find the sequels, and full of anticipation when I finally stumbled over them recently. While this third "Hanzo" film is just not quite as brilliant as its predecessors it is definitely another great piece of cult-cinema that no lover of Japanese exploitation cinema can afford to miss. "Who's Got The Gold" is a bit tamer than the two foregoing Hanzo films, but it is just as brilliantly comical and crudely humorous, and immediately starts out fabulously odd: The film begins, when Hanzo's two assistants see a female ghost when fishing. Having always wanted to sleep with a ghost, Hanzo insists that his assistants lead him to the site of the occurrence... If that is not a promising beginning for an awesome film experience, I don't know what is. Shintaro Katsu, one of my personal favorite actors, is once again brilliant in the role of Hanzo, a role that seems to have been written specifically for him. Katsu IS Hanzo, the obstinate and fearless constable, who hates corruption and deliberately insults his superiors, and whose unique interrogation techniques include raping female suspects. The interrogated women than immediately fall for him, due to his sexual powers and enormous penis, which he trains in a rather grotesque routine ritual. I will not give away more about the plot in "Who's Got The Gold", but I can assure that it is as cool as it sounds. The supporting performances are also very good, and, as in the predecessors, there are plenty of hilariously eccentric characters. This is sadly the last film in the awesomely sleazy 'Hanzo' series. If they had made 20 sequels more, I would have happily watched them all! The entire Hanzo series is brilliant, and while this third part is a bit inferior compared to its predecessors, it is definitely a must-see for all lovers of cult-cinema! Oh how I wish they had made more sequels!
| 1
|
train_907
|
This movie is a great attempt towards the revival of traditional Indian values which are being replaced by western ones.Its a joint family story showing all the ethics every person should follow while communicating with every single relative around.Shahid Kapoor gives a gr88 performance as a desi about to tie knot with Amrita Rao who is also very Desi and she also acts pretty well...The genre of the movie is the same as HAHK and such movies deserve to be made in India for the revival of old traditional values...The movies doesn't get 10 as it isn't very good at music which counts a lot in every movie,besides this it is flawless....
| 1
|
train_4977
|
So many educational films are nothing more than mind-numbing drudgery, saved only by the fact that "MST3K" mocks them ("Why Study Industrial Arts?" comes to mind). "Hemo the Magnificent" is actually quite well done. It's all about blood, the heart, and the circulatory system. I admit that I don't remember everything from it, but it does a good job explaining everything, keeping it serious but entertaining. I guess that you can always count on June Foray (most famously the voice of Rocky the Squirrel, she plays a deer here).Since "Hemo the Magnificent" itself may be hard to find, probably the best place to see it is in "Gremlins": a class is watching it while a gremlin is forming.
| 1
|
train_16308
|
WARNING! This review will reveal the ending of the movie, "Scoop." If you don't want to know how the movie ends, don't read this review!"Scoop" is so bad you'll think "Annie Hall" was a fluke.It gets one star because you get to see Hugh Jackman's naked chest. That's the only thing "Scoop" has going for it.Woody Allen's misogyny, and his fixation on women young enough, at this point, to be his granddaughter, has crippled any ability to make movies he may have had at any point.The plot seems promising: a ghost, Ian McShane, directs a fluffy headed student, Scarlett Johansson, to investigate whether or not an English Lord, Hugh Jackman, is the notorious Tarot Card Killer of prostitutes. A magician, Woody Allen, helps the girl.Promising plot notwithstanding, the movie completely lacks charm, or humor, or atmosphere. It's an amazingly leaden, amateurish effort for someone who has made even one previous film, never mind dozens. Perhaps Allen has had a stroke that has gone unreported in the press.Much is made of the fact that unlike in his previous films, Woody Allen, now a septuagenarian, has FINALLY allowed a younger male lead to get the girl.Not so. In fact, the plot is constructed in such a way so that the girl gets no one.There is an early scene where Johansson, for no reason central to the movie, allows herself to be gotten drunk, and seduced, by a powerful, older director. "Seduced" is a euphemism for what happens. It's a "slam, bam, I've gotta go" kind of moment. It bears no relation to the plot whatsoever, and it cheapens Johansson in the viewer's eye. Why did Allen add that unnecessary scene to the movie? Because it shows a powerful director - like Allen - having sex with the female lead. Allen gets to have his cake and eat it, too.Johansson is not yet an actress. She doesn't know how to command the screen except by wearing a tight, low cut top. She imitates Allen in a couple of scenes, and that just looks weird and sad.It doesn't help that her character is scripted as a doll who can't function without a ghost, or an elderly and less than awe-inspiring magician, telling her what to do at every turn.She is approximately half Jackman's age, and she comes across as a very vapid screen presence in their scenes together.Audience members not obsessed with breasts deserve better in their heroines, and Jackman deserves better, too -- a script that gives the heroine some intelligence and agency, and an actress who can convey those qualities.Hugh Jackman is similarly cheated by the script. Allen apparently can't stand it that Jackman is so stunningly good looking and young, and so he gives Jackman nothing to say or do. Like Johansson, he is used merely for his good looks. This is a shame, because, as Jackman has shown in any number of productions, from "Oklahoma" to "X Men," he CAN act.Here's the big plot twist -- Jackman, suave, charming English Lord, really is a killer. So, though the movie says it is all about letting someone else, other than Allen, get the girl, she doesn't get anyone. Jackman, the man she's been making love to, is a man who murdered a prostitute. Nice, Woody. Nice way to punish your heroine for being beyond your grasp.In a passive aggressive touch, Allen deprives his heroine of his own presence, as well, killing off his character, the magician, leaving Scarlett Johansson all alone at the end of the film.A final note: at my screening, not a single audience member laughed at any point during the film. Always a bad sign when a film is advertised as a comedy.
| 0
|
train_2396
|
This is a very entertaining film which follows the rehearsal process of a NY production of Macbeth. Although it has a lot to say about power, jealousy and ambition (the themes of Macbeth) in our modern world, the film works best when it is not taking itself too seriously. Recognizable actors such as John Glover, Gloria Reubens and David Lansbury do nice jobs in the main roles, but the highlight for me was the hilarious scene where the "murder" of Banquo (John Elsen) is rehearsed. Probably a more entertaining film for those involved in theatre, but anyone who enjoys Shakespeare should enjoy this film.
| 1
|
train_17037
|
I actually didn't enjoy this movie.I saw it at a camp, and we didn't rave about it, we laughed at it. Sure, some parts are touching, but the acting is terrible, the effects are terrible, and the whole overall movie idea is terrible (now, I know it was based on a book which I haven't read, but I hope that the book was better than this, because frankly, I thought that this movie was very bad and boring). Like I said, I went to it with a bunch of people from a camp, and we were excited to be there, plus I got a caffeinated drink, but nonetheless, I struggled to stay awake. The only thing that kept me up (other than my fear of being embarrassed once I woke up) was the gunshots, that were quite pointless as well. I just really didn't like it.
| 0
|
train_12527
|
Terrible movie. Nuff Said.These Lines are Just Filler. The movie was bad. Why I have to expand on that I don't know. This is already a waste of my time. I just wanted to warn others. Avoid this movie. The acting sucks and the writing is just moronic. Bad in every way. The only nice thing about the movie are Deniz Akkaya's breasts. Even that was ruined though by a terrible and unneeded rape scene. The movie is a poorly contrived and totally unbelievable piece of garbage.OK now I am just going to rag on IMDb for this stupid rule of 10 lines of text minimum. First I waste my time watching this offal. Then feeling compelled to warn others I create an account with IMDb only to discover that I have to write a friggen essay on the film just to express how bad I think it is. Totally unnecessary.
| 0
|
train_11315
|
Luchino Visconti was light years ahead of his contemporaries. The great directors of Italy of the 40s and 50s were men who understood the medium, but it was Luchino Visconti, a man of vision, who dared to bring a film like to show what he was capable of doing. He clearly shows his genius early on in his distinguished career with "Ossessione", a film based on James Cain's "The Postman Always Ring Twice", which was later made by Hollywood, but that version pales in comparison with what Visconti achieved in the movie. Luchino Visconti and his collaborators on the screen included an uncredited Alberto Moravia, a man who knew about the effect of passion on human beings.The film has been well preserved in the DVD format we watched recently. The film is a must for all serious movie fans because we can see how Visconti's vision translated the text into a movie that rings true in a plausible way, something the American version lacked.What comes across watching the movie, is the intensity which the director got from his key players. The magnificent Clara Calamai does an amazing job as Giovanna, the woman who has married an older man, but when Gino appears in her life, all she wants to do is rid herself of the kind man who gave her an opportunity in life. Giovanna is one of the best creations in Ms. Calamai's achievements in the Italian cinema. The last sequence of the film shows Ms. Calamai at her best in the ironic twist that serves as the moral redemption for the monstrous crime that was committed.Equally excellent is Massimo Girotti, one of the best actors of his generation who appears as Gino, the hunky man that awakens the obsessive passion in Giovanna. Gino is the perfect man for Giovanna, something that Mr. Girotti projects with such ease and sophistication not equaled before in the screen. Mr. Girotti makes the man come alive in a performance that seems so easy, yet with another actor it might not have been so apparent. Juan DeLanda is seen as Giuseppe, the older man who fell in love with Giovanna. In fact, his character rings truer than his counterpart in the American film, where he is seen more as a buffoon.The film is beautifully photographed by Domenic Scala and Aldo Tonti. They gave the film a naturalistic look that was the way Italian directors of the era favored. The original musical score of Giuseppe Rosati is perfect. Visconti, a man who loved opera and was one of the best directors, also includes arias by Bizet and Verdi that fit well in the context of the movie."Ossessione" is a film to treasure because we see a great Luchino Visconti at the top of his form.
| 1
|
train_22832
|
Awful, simply awful. It proves my theory about "star power." This is supposed to be great TV because the guy who directed (battlestar) Titanica is the same guy who directed this shlop schtock schtick about a chick. B O R I N G.Find something a thousand times more interesting to do - like watch your TV with no picture and no sound. 1/10 (I rated it so high b/c there aren't any negative scores in the IMDb.com rating system.)-ZaphoidPS: My theory about "star power" is: the more "star power" used in a show, the weaker the show is. (It's called an indirect proportionality: quality 1/"star power", less "sp" makes for better quality, etc. Another way to look at it is: "more is less.")-Z
| 0
|
train_494
|
This is the start of a new and interesting Star Trek series. It has a "down to earth"-kind of feel with darker and less "plaggy" scenography.The characters need some more time to develop but they have potential. One thing that is fairly disappointing (with all Star Trek series really) is that they portray such a gloomy picture of the equality between men and women in the future when they paint a very positive picture about everything else. (Earth has stopped war, famine etc) The female characters here are two, subcommander T'Pol who is vulcan and communications officer Hoshi who is human. Hoshi is quite wimpy and T'Pol is made to be a "vulcan babe". Some of the crew attitudes feel a bit too American (as opposed to the more international feel of the TNG-crew) but creates interesting dynamics. A very good pilot though for a very good series.
| 1
|
train_13382
|
There is a reason this went straight to video- the story is smarmy, Nick Cage plays Johnny in a sleazy way- sex in churches, and other scenes that border on tasteless(like the scene in the laundry room) taint this movie. Judge Reinhold as the cuckold is okay- but the movie itself with its themes of degradation and revenge are not well done. But it is a good film for trivia contests- because so few people saw it.
| 0
|
train_14916
|
2 stars, and I'm being generous. (minor spoilers) Look, this is a low budget zombie movie set in gangland Oakland. As the plot goes, a scientist wants to bring his dead brother back to life after being killed in a drive-by.The main problem with this movie: what zombies?! All the "zombies" do is growl (which doesn't sound even remotely scary) and drip fake red blood from their mouths! No scary eyes, no decaying flesh, just a bunch of people growling pathetically and running around like idiots.The cover is also misleading. There are only about 6 zombies in the whole film, so it's not like the whole "hood" is plagued with zombies or anything, it's just a few, and is contained in no time.The acting actually is so bad it's hilarious. No one can act at all in this movie (except maybe one of the gang members) and it really seems like a bunch of friends got together, decided to cast their family, and made a movie one weekend.Final note: since when do Doctors wear tracksuits?! Skip this one, please!
| 0
|
train_23093
|
The infamous Ed Wood "classic" Plan 9 From Outer Space features an indignant alien calling the human race, "...stupid! Stupid, stupid stupid!" I'd have to say exhibit A in that trial would probably this movie, a ridiculously silly sci-fi film.Falling action star Jean Claude Van Damme returns to a hit role for him from the original movie, Luke, a former Universal Soldier who now works making really good universal soldiers. While Van Damme was too big to reprise the role in the first two sequels, he was too small to do much of anything else by the time the fourth film in the Universal Soldier series came around. So, probably cursing under his breath the whole way, he kicks and grunts and scowls through ninety minutes of explosions and karate kicks. You'll find plenty of mindless violence, but I'd advise you get a coat check for your brain at the door when you start watching this thing. Otherwise, you are liable to forget where you left it by the time it's over.Luke is called into action against more Universal Soldiers after a really really REALLY evil computer named Seth (makes HAL look like Ghandi) turns all the other universal soldiers into evil, remorseless killers. Of course this is what these things are programmed to do, but in this case they are killing their creators, not "the enemy" so that's a problem.I love the dumb logic of this movie. Logic that believes that a supercomputer would create a body for itself that looks as ashamed as Michael Jai White does to be in this movie. Logic that dictates that the creator of Seth be a blue-haired cyber-stereotype geek who spouts cliches more regularly than Old Faithful does steam. Logic that has a climactic karate fight feature two characters kicking each other though ten separate panes of shattering glass in the span of three minutes of screen time.The film also features a daughter in peril character, wrestler Bill Goldberg as a wrestler disguised as a Universal Soldier, and a romance so tacked on, I have to think the writers thought tacked on romances were actually a GOOD thing. And when this movie ends, it ends. Not a minute after a gigantic towering finale-style explosion are the credits running. No epilogue, no where are they now, no final kiss, just explosion, hug, over. Even the creators want to get out of this thing as soon as possible.While it's no Plan 9, US:TR is a silly little trifle of an action movie that would be fun at parties full of rowdy Van Damme fans who enjoy seeing their hero really reaching new depths. Not to be seen on a serious stomach.
| 0
|
train_12209
|
I was very impressed with this small, independently made picture. The story, about a pair of social outcasts who meet, become friends, and provide each other with a support system both seemed to lack as children, is at times hilarious, at times sad, but always provocative. Music, mostly by underground bands, was used to great effect, as was the experimentation with camera angles, filters, and slow or fast motion techniques. The performances (the leads are played by the writers and directors of the film) are some of the best I've seen in the last couple of years. If you ever felt like a square peg being forced into a round slot, I really believe you'll appreciate "By Hook or By Crook".
| 1
|
train_15243
|
I have to admit I did not finish this movie because it was so amazingly stupid and not worth watching. I watched it with a room full of kids, who also were not laughing at the stupid and crude humor. The director, Bob Dolman, seems to be so obsessed with sphincters and genitalia that it overrides the real story that I grew up with. THIS IS NOT A GOOD FILM FOR KIDS! Besides the fact that the content is so crude, the movie is just stupid has bad flow and has no intelligence behind it. What a waste of a perfectly good story. If you read the book when you were younger and loved it, then don't waste your time watching a movie that so badly botches it that it makes you angry. Buy your kids the book instead.
| 0
|
train_2463
|
William Shakespeare would be very proud of this particular version of his play. Not only is it the best movie version of it, but it's also the only complete version of Hamlet. Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet is simply genius. Not only because it was written by Shakespeare, but also because it had the guts to do the whole thing, even if it went just over four hours.We all know the story of the Prince of Denmark and his plot to avenge his father's death, so I won't go into the details of the story. I will, however, tell you that the best part of this Hamlet version is not the breathtaking sets or the stunning photography, but the actors' interpretations of each character. I doubt you'll find a better Polonius than Richard Briers' delicious portrayal. Plus, you can't go wrong with Julie Christie and Jack Lemmon. Also, Derek Jacobi, a regular among Shakespeare adaptations is magnificent as the antagonist to Hamlet.Of course, we must talk about Kenneth Branagh. He wowed audiences when he came onto the scene with his first outing with Shakespeare, Henry V. He outdoes himself with Hamlet. Sure, Olivier's presence was captivating, but I think Branagh's performance is wonderful. When you watch him on screen, it's almost as if he knew exactly how Shakespeare wanted the role to be played. How he wasn't nominated for an Oscar is a total mystery. At least the movie got a few nominations and even an odd choice for Screenplay. I guess they know good writing when they see it though. All in all, you'll never find a more rich and lavish production of the Bard's best play. To say that the technical aspects were awesome would be an understatement. If you love this play and are a fan of Shakespeare, you definitely need to check this movie out. Even if you don't really care for Shakespeare, the visuals will keep you occupied for the duration of the film. You may not think you'll be able to sit through all of it at once, but you'll soon find out that pausing this movie will make you want to see it even more.
| 1
|
train_3898
|
Hilarious hardly begins to describe this one of a kind genuine tour-de-Star-Wars-force (Luke: how strong? Vader: the strength of a small pony), in which, being the master he is, he doesn't even break a sweat, ingeniously sparing himself mascara leakage.. -and that's with almost 2 hours of whirling his way thru history, its birthplace, Europe, and more.From Heimlich's middle-of-the-night, "I've invented a maneuver!" to the British Empire's "..do you have a flag..?" and ancient deadbeat gods, "Jeff! The God of Biscuits!" and many more, this is fish-flop-on-the-floor-to-jumpstart-your-lungs funny.And I confess to having passed on this video dozens of times over the years, seeing as a British transvestite standup, vogueing on a chair, is one longshot of a rental after all, especially one going back 10 years now. And yet, the material is not only timeless but almost oracular, turning present day into nothing more than an amplified, funnier/sadder version of where we were at a decade ago, although come to think about it, that may just be a coincidence.
| 1
|
train_6471
|
An OUR GANG Comedy Short.The Gang coerces Spanky into watching their younger siblings. Caring for these FORGOTTEN BABIES turns out to be quite a chore, leaving the little nipper with no choice but to come up with some ingenious solutions to the baby-sitting problem...Spanky is in his glory in this hilarious little film, arguably his best. Highlight: Spanky's retelling the plot of the TARZAN movie he's recently seen to the audience of infants. Movie mavens will recognize Billy Gilbert's voice in the radio drama.
| 1
|
train_23660
|
This kind of "inspirational" saccharine is enough to make you sick. It telegraphs its sentiments like the biggest semaphore on earth. It removes from the audience its own interpretation and feeling by making the choices for it. The big finish is swimming in weeping orchestration that must supposed to work like jumper cables on a dead car; I guess you'd need such prompting to feel if you're stupid enough to watch a film as simple-minded and sappy as this. Streep glows and you wonder if she really has the depth of feeling on display or if it's just that---a display, switched on and off like a light. Because I can't for the life of me see how she could possibly find life in such a dud of film. Even though it's based on a true story, and an inspirational one at that I'm sure, the set-up, execution and performances play like a third-rate TV movie or half-witted high school drama.
| 0
|
train_11938
|
I enjoy movies like this for their spirit, no pun intended. Its a decent, clean movie about a baseball team that's falling behind, and a young fan wishes for them to win, since his deadbeat dad said that was the only way he'd come back for him. The spirit shines through in two ways: A funny cast with Danny Glover and a young Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and the heavenly herald Al, taking the dynamic form of Christopher Lloyd. Its an energetic movie. It gets you smiling, and really involves you in the sport. Therein lies my gripe. the one thing that kinda bugs me is these sports movies that kind of turn you into an unexpecting fan for the team. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I just find it odd that I should come away from the movie thinking the Angels are a strong, cool team, when really my base loyalty, such as it is, lies with the Toronto Blue Jays. It's interesting, really. If it's just a movie about an underdog kids team, then its okay.
| 1
|
train_13546
|
.... this movie basks too much in its own innocence. It doesn't tell a story; it's more a big time snooze fest. While the actors are all personable, the story is so trite and goes nowhere. I think Victor Rasuk has great charisma, but deserves a real film from a real storyteller.
| 0
|
train_17572
|
And a self-admitted one to boot. At one point the doctor's assistant refers to himself as Igor.Working with the increasingly plausible idea that computers could be used to replace or reconstruct brain functions, this movie doesn't spend enough time exploring the premise. Most of the screen time is split between girlfriend-in-a-coma domestic strife and chasing down the brain donor's killer. It attempts to be a sci-fi/drama/thriller but fails to deliver on any of the three.As a Frankenstein remake this one is missing everything that made the original good. Nobody calls the doctor insane or even threatens to kick him out of the hospital. The transformation scene consists of a coma victim opening one eye and the amazing computer that makes it happen isn't even shown. When the experiment works there is no praise, and when it starts going wrong there is little reaction.Any suspense over who the killer might be is shattered by progressively showing him in the same room with all of the possible suspects. Finding the killer is as easy as opening one file and interviewing one person.San Francisco as a setting is both overplayed and underused. The opening sequence hammers home the point that this is happening in SF, a cable car plays a significant role, the leads live in a hilltop Victorian, Pier 39 makes an appearance, and the final showdown happens at Golden Gate Park. More specifically along ten feet of cliff side at the park - just enough to keep the bridge in the picture at all times. Once the obvious scenery bases are rounded no other attempt is made to explore the city.The acting is the only saving grace here. Keir Dullea shows a good range and pulls off a couple of genuinely emotional scenes. Suzanna Love portrays recovery from a coma well. Tony Curtis only gets a handful of lines and twice as many evil guy stares with most of the Frankenscience explained away by his assistant. The little blond kid hits his cues fairly well also.I also gave it one extra star for the scene where the husband drives south from the bridge, it cuts to a U-turn in an unrelated parking lot, and then he's instantly back on the bridge driving north. It takes a whole lot of something - bravery, ignorance, deadlines - to try and slip that one by the viewer during the one single car chase.
| 0
|
train_19479
|
I watched this movie also, and altho it is very well done, I found it a heartbreaker and would not recommend this to women who have small children.. The terror on this mother's face when she sees her child about to be run over by a train is truly heartbreaking. And the sad thing is--internally she dies. Eventually she goes back to the Applacian mountains. All the money in the world which she makes from making dolls does not conceal the grief she has. I remember her desperate face as she pulls money out of her clothes to try to have her child healed. I'm surprised this movie takes place in Detroit, because when I watched it I thought for sure the people had come to Cincinnati, Ohio. This also was a route for the poor from the mountains.
| 0
|
train_8169
|
This is a gory mess and pretty convincing. Corbin Bernson is very much in command of this movie with his slick portrayal of the loony control freak eponymous practitioner. Linda Hoffman plays his cheating wife and she is very easy on the eye - unfortunately for her, the little "tryst" with the pool guy brings severe punishment in a way the good doctor knows best - shame about that pretty smile! The last half hour of the movie is devoted to Bernson's character losing it completely and the spotlight falls on a young actress called Virginya Keehne. An extremely talented performer, she hogs the limelight from the moment the braces come off. Nice legs, too!
| 1
|
train_7707
|
As did others in this forum, when "Fobidden Planet" was offered in 1956, I rushed to see it. This story is an interesting phenomenon I suggest because young, old, male, female, sci-fi experts and people who find such fare 'way out" all can follow and enjoy this film's story and plot lines very well. This is the first movie set on a planet other than Earth in the 20th Century other than serials such as "Flash Gordon". Leslie Nielsen was vocally a bit weak for his role, at that time, but Walter Pigeon, Marvin Miller, Anne Francis, Richard Anderson, Earl Holliman and especially Warren Stevens all acquitted themselves very well. There are so many visual splendors in this one, it's hard to choose a favorite from the film's scenes. The approach to Altair-4, the starship itself, the landing on the planet's alien surface, the descent via extensor stairs, the first view of the landscape, the approach of the rocket-sled, Dr. Morbius's house seen from without and from within, the underground complex and its wonders, the setup of the weaponry, the battle with the monster, the final approach of the unseen destroyer,the escape from the doomed planet--all these scenes are etched into the viewer's mind because we discover them along with the participants. Veteran Cyril Hume's literate script was filmed intelligently by long-time director Fred McLeod Wilcox with clarity and imagination. it is a shock to realize there's no music at all; the film is carried by the words, the actors and the mystery-revelation storyline. It can be watched again and again with pleasure--I have been doing so for nearly fifty years. Until this famous and well-loved film was created, no film had tried to imagine a world beyond Earth; and for decades afterward, ships kept crashing back on the planet--as if the writers' imaginations were failing and causing the crashes. Still the best, many say. That says something negative about this nation's so-called intellectual leaders' imaginations--and something very positive indeed I suggest about those who made this gem.
| 1
|
train_10238
|
People expect no less than brilliant when Steven Spielberg directs a movie, and this movie is no exception. Some movies I love did poorly at the box office but, I'm glad to say, this movie isn't one of them (over nine million dollars, which I don't think was bad for back then). The characters were fun, the animation was clear and not fuzzy, and the music was modern, too, which is unusual for an animated movie. I didn't think Professor Screw Eyes or his "Scary Cirus" was too scary for little kids (the targeted audience for this movie), but I thought what happened to the creepy professor at the end was a little too dark for a kids' movie. Overall, this movie is a fun and enchanting classic that I have loved dearly for years.
| 1
|
train_10711
|
I would highly recommend this movie! And I certainly shall be personally recommending it to my friends and family here and abroad! It was with excited anticipation, that I have just pre-ordered it online, I enjoyed it so much! It is not out until February/March 2008, but it will be well worth the wait! But first go and see it in the cinema if you can. There is nothing quite like the Cinema-Experience of a cinema-made movie! Insist that your local cinema puts it on! I went to see 'Seachd, the Inaccessible Pinacle' tonight, down here in London, and was really impressed. It is a marvel: a truly beautiful film set in the Scottish Highlands: you will laugh, you will cry, you will be moved in may different ways, you will be intrigued, and as the story within the stories is revealed, you will be amazed at that revelation.This movie is in Scottish Gaelic with English Subtitles, but do not let that detract you if you are not a speaker of the Gaelic: I am just starting, and my son does not, nor did many people there tonight, and it did not spoil it for us by any manner of means! Superlatives do not suffice! The photography is superb - there is no CGI here, and the movie is all the better for that- here you have true photography! The script is so skilfully and subtly written. The many-layered plot weaves the magic art of the ancient storytellers. The music is at times rousing, at times haunting, but always adding to the atmospheric ambiance. And the acting? ... it is to behold ... and the actors?... they the true weavers of this delightful yet profound film, particularly the two main actors, 'Padruig-the-young' and 'Padruig-the-elder' (A true bard, if ever there was!), who both carried a very heavy load! And the Direction? Well watch out Richard! And the Producer, responsible for raising funding, hiring key personnel, and arranging for distributors? A task well done! I hope that you will make sure that distribution goes out to our communities abroad! And the Gaelic community? Uill, without you it could not have happened! We were told that this movie was made on a low budget, but you would not know it, and I think it might well be because, for what they might have lacked in money, they more than made up for with the richness of the heart, and the warmth and co-operation of the local Scottish Gaelic community.A heartfelt thanks to all concerned in the making, and the sponsoring, of 'Seachd' - Mòran taing! (Many thanks!) From the Gaels to the World! From the World to the Gaels!
| 1
|
train_3977
|
I personally watched this to see the footage of the 60's and 70's. It was fascinating to learn how the drug movement essentially started and became pop culture and an eventual uncompromising force in life. The interviews of the classic rock stars are titillating and humorous. You feel like you're in on a secret and nodding your head at the same time...because it feels so good and familiar. I loved it, all segments from 60's-present day. I highly recommend this for all aspects, including rock music, the hipper movement, politics and good 'ol history. I check marked the box saying this contains a spoiler, only because I have no idea what some might consider a spoiler or not in this regards, since I discussed what's in all 4 segments, so just wanted to be safe.
| 1
|
train_24150
|
After coming off the first one you think the wayans brothers could come up with some new jokes. Though i guess not. If the first one wasn't bad enough this one is just so bad it hurts to watch. With all the actors they had in this film you think they could come up with something a little more clever. Though they couldn't, they had to take all the same raunchy, not funny jokes from the first one and somehow put it into this film thinking people would laugh at it again. Though the thing is i didn't laugh at it the first time. They tried to make these movies into parodies though they failed at every level. Most of the time it's just randomly inserted jokes, that are so disgusting and raunchy that it's hard to watch it and enjoy it. Then when they do try to do scenes that are movie parodies they just end up making a 20 minute recreation of the scene with maybe one joke within the entire scene. Also for people saying that its not for the older and real young audience, well i fit into the age range that it's supposed to be funny for. While people say that different people have different ideas of what is funny or not, if you do find this funny then you probably aren't one of the more mature or intelligent people around. It doesn't take that much skill to write that kind of a script, though if you do want a more clever and funnier movie go see the movie Spaceballs. It's a movie parody that's actually good and well done and it didn't have to use disgusting and raunchy jokes to make it funny either.
| 0
|
train_21416
|
I rented this DVD having seen it while looking for something else. When I saw the title on the jacket I couldn't believe my eyes. I read Yalom's book about a year ago and loved it, in fact admire Yalom's work in general. (I am a clinical psychologist.) I have watched perhaps 30 minutes of this movie and have had to turn it off. I'm not sure if I can take much more. At a superficial level, the faux accents, as others have commented, are simply distracting at best and irritating and vapid at worst. The acting is dull when it should be passionate and comical when it should be serious. The portrayal of Lou Salome is simply flippant, and the brilliant Freud comes off as little more than a schoolboy. I see very little of the book's spirit conveyed thus far. I had hoped to be able to recommend this film to my students. Instead, I will refer them to the book. Imagine that.
| 0
|
train_21924
|
This was not enjoyable to watch. Frank puts all his dreams on the back burner and gets a normal (boring!) job just so his stepson can go to film school, but his stepson decides that he'll make a humiliating documentary about the man instead. A documentary filmmaker should point the camera and simply shoot, not manipulate and comment with snide captions. The bitterness and resentment of the filmmaker towards his stepfather is obvious. And sad. The goal seems to be to make Frank appear dumb and pathetic, instead he comes across as the most human of the 3 people featured.Essentially a smear campaign all dressed up as something much smarter and edgier than it really is. It left me with an intense dislike for the filmmaker.
| 0
|
train_3874
|
And I absolutely adore Isabelle Blais!!! She was so cute in this movie, and far different from her role in "Quebec-Montreal" where she was more like a man-eater. I think she should have been nominated for a Jutra. I mean, Syvlie Moreau was good, but Isabelle was far superior, IMO. Pelletier has done fine work for his first time out, and I noticed he snuck in a couple of his buddies from Rock et Belles Oreilles, Guy A. LePage & Andre Ducharme. It was fun to see them in this, I didn't know they were going to appear.I don't think I've seen a romantic comedy from Quebec that I didn't like, and this one is as good as any I've had the pleasure to see. And if you're in the states and wondering how you can get a copy of the DVD, www.archambault.ca delivered it to me in less than a week.
| 1
|
train_3602
|
While the story of a troubled kid turning to boxing for self-respect and anger management is hardly a new thing, the story is given a fresh twist here when the protagonist is a girl instead of a boy.Diana has trouble at school. She just can't stay away from fighting. At home her father is constantly putting her down. Her brother trains boxing at a gym and one day when she picks him up she decides she also wants to train.It would be easy to call this movie a "Rocky with girls" i guess. But that is not at all what this is about. The story actually benefits very much from the main character being a girl rather than a boy. That way you can deal with more problems at once. First the problem of her not being accepted because she's not a girlie-girl, and then when she comes to the boxing gym because she's a girl at all. It's also a story about how a purpose can change someones life. How positive things can make you grow. I don't want this to sound pretentious, because the movie doesn't feel pretentious at all, but what i'm saying is true.Also Michelle Rodriguez is very good in the lead. It's a shame really that she has become stuck in the "tough girl" typecasting now, because that's really not what her part in "Girlfight" is all about. Sure she's a female boxer, but rather it's the more sensitive moments that really makes her shine.So maybe this is basically your average underdog story with a twist, but it's lifted way above the crowd by Rodriguez' performance. I rate this 7/10.
| 1
|
train_21745
|
This video guide was the masterpiece of the year 1995. Beautifully done! Matthew Perry and Jennifer Aniston have major on-screen chemistry when they talk about what the Start button does. I'm waiting for Microsoft to release a Special Edition DVD complete with deleted scenes, Bill Gates commentary, a documentary of how Windows 95 compares to Windows XP, and more!Overall: 10/10 (Should have won at least a Golden Globe)
| 0
|
train_13604
|
This is one of the worst-written movies I've ever had to sit through.The story's nothing new -- but it's a cartoon, so who cares, as long as it's pretty and fun? I'm not going to go as deep as the characterisations, or I'll be here all day (except to say that there aren't any; the characters change personality whenever it's convenient to the plot), but whoever wrote the script and visual direction should be forbidden access to so much as pencil and paper. Thumbs down? I'd vote to cut their thumbs off."Narrow in on an object/prop. Cut back to character close-up. Character gives a knowing look, which the audience will not even remotely understand. Repeat that several times, with different objects/props.""Make the characters pay no attention at all the huge lumps of rock are floating around, crashing into each other, generally raining destruction all over, and which could kill them all at any moment -- but make them stop and gasp in fear when they see a harmless-looking, almost pastoral green rock in the distance." The whole thing is a long succession of events, actions, and behaviour that are only there for the convenience of the writer, to save him having to think or make any effort at all to write the story properly.This is the Plan 9 of CG cartoons, except that it doesn't have Ed Wood groan factor to make it fun to watch.Do yourselves a favour: spend your cartoon budget on Pixar movies.
| 0
|
train_15701
|
Joe Don Baker is an alright to good actor in small roles here and there...he was alright in Goldeneye and made a pretty good Bond villan in The Living Daylights and has appeared in various other movies. One thing he can't do is carry a movie as the lead, which he is in this extremely bad revenge movie set in Malta. Joe Don's partner is killed so he kills the killer's brother and escorts the killer to Italy, but some guys cause the plane to set down in Malta and the killer gets away. The rest of the movie is seeing Joe Don chase the killer here and there, Joe Don getting taken into custody various times, Joe Don torturing a bartendar and being interrupted and so on. The movie is quite bad and you won't find yourself exactly pulling for Joe Don's character. You will be amazed at how many times Joe Don the hero gets taken out by one punch and how incompetent he proves to be. The crowning part of the movie comes when Joe Don chases the killer all over Malta with the killer in a priest robe and then they get in boats and he chases them all around Malta. This movie also features one of the worst closing lines to end a movie ever.
| 0
|
train_14971
|
I remember back when I was little when I was away at camp and we would campout under the stars. There was always someone there that would have a good story to tell that involved the woods that surrounded us and they would always creep me out. Well, when I found Wendigo at the library, I checked it out hoping to be one of those films that had a supernatural being haunting people in the woods much like the stories that were told at camp. Well, much to my dismay, I was so far from the truth. Wendigo is really bad. The story starts of when a family of three is driving to their winter cabin, which looks like your normal suburban home and nothing like a cabin in the woods, and they run into a deer. Well, it seems the local rednecks were actually hunting this particular deer and are pretty upset at our city folk. The movie spends far too much time following the families everyday activities instead of getting to the point of the film. It wasn't until about the last 15 minutes that we actually have some action involving the "wendigo." My suggestion is that you stay very far away this film. It will leave you wanting your hour and a half back.
| 0
|
train_19264
|
NATURAL BORN KILLERS (1994)Cinema Cut: R Director's Cut: NC-17It's an unusual Oliver Stone picture, but when I read he was on drugs during the filming, I needed no further explanation. 'Natural Born Killers' is a risky, mad, all out film-making that we do not get very often; strange, psychotic, artistic pictures.'Natural Born Killers' is basically the story of how two mass killers were popularised and glorified by the media; there is a great scene where an interviewer questions some teenagers about Mickey and Mallory, and the teenager says 'Murder is wrong.... but If I was a mass murderer I'd be Mickey and Mallory'. Mickey describes this with a situation of 'Frankenstein (the monster) and Dr. Frankenstein' - Dr. Frankenstein is the media who has turned them into these monstrous killersMost Oliver Stone films examine the flaws of the America, the country that the director loves and admires. I guess 'Natural Born Killers' is about the effect of mass media, technology and how obsessive as a nation, Americans are (and most of the world) over things such as mass killers and bizarre situations.The killers played by Woody Harrelson (Mickey) and Juliette Lewis (Mallory) are executed astonishingly by two excellent actors who step into the lives of two interestingly brutal killers. Mickey and Mallory believe that some people are worthy of killing, perhaps in the cruel theory of Social Darwinism (survival of the fittest) - Mickey says in his interview in prison, that other species commit murder, we as humans ravage other species and exploit the environment; the script is interesting, but it is questionable how much this film amounts to, in the sense of making us think about society and human behaviour, rather than the intensity of a 2 hour bloodbath that we have seen.The last hour of the film takes place in a maximum security prison; we see the harsh realities of prison life; the attitudes of the warden etc;overfilling of prisons - maybe Stone is questioning the future, the path that society is leading to.Two other interesting characters; First, a reporter who runs a show about 'America's Maniacs' and is obsessed with boosting ratings, that he goes to any length to capture the story of Mickey and Mallory. The other is police officer Scagnetti, an insane, perhaps sadistic officer that is in love with Mallory - he also has some weird obsession with mass killers, since his mother was killed during the massacre at Waco, Texas by Charles Whitman.The cinematography is superb; different colours, shadows, styles create a feeling of disorientation; the green colour most evident of all is green, to resemble the sickness of the killers (in the drugstore when they are looking for rattlesnake antidote).The camera work is insane; shaky, buzzy, it takes some determination to get use to it and accept it. Highly unorthodox, psychedelic and unusual.'Natural Born Killers' does not glamourise the existence of insane murderers, it questions it and how we as the public may fuel this attribute...Although the above review sound quite positive, I did dislike the film. Quentin Tarantino, who originally wrote the script for the film, was not pleased with the altered screenplay and he asked for his name to be removed. I can see why. While mildly interesting at times, Natural Born Killers is a mess of a picture.4/10
| 0
|
train_17479
|
Why oh why can't anyone make a decent film out of a legendary tale? This is the second adaptation of "Beowulf" I've been disappointed with in a year. But I have to say, the previous version ("Beowulf & Grendel", starring Gerald Butler) was far superior to this. That one was only a little disappointing. This one is a mess!!! What bugged me most? Was it the useless plot elements they added in for no particular reason (Human sacrifices? Pointless love interest?), or the bad CGI, or the inconsistency of the characters or the uninspired acting? Even worse was the way they made beautiful Marina Sirtis look so horrible!!! And lets not even talk about that ridiculous crossbow? And why did they continually remind us that Beowulf had the strength of 30 men, and yet he never showed the slightest sign of such strength throughout the entire film. He was tossed around by both monsters he fought, relying on his sidekicks to save his bacon. Even when he slugged the arrogant prince, he didn't knock him out. He was much too reliant on weapons. Beo-wimp is more like it. This was certainly not the powerful Beowulf of the epic poem! I'd like to end this on a positive note but I can't really think of one offhand. All I can say is, if you've ever read "Beowulf", you'll be infinitely disappointed by this dismal, inaccurate excuse for an adaptation!
| 0
|
train_11813
|
Love it or loathe it, it's hard to not find Warren Beatty's take on "Dick Tracy," the 1990 film adaptation of Chester Gould's famous comic strip, anything short of a genre classic. Superhero films have been coming out of the woodwork in recent years, and may soon become a genre all on its own.Beatty's film liberally uses Gould's source material to full effect, shooting in all six of the strip's primary colors, and thus giving this unique yet familiar world of trigger-happy mutant gangsters and loose, seductive women a lush visual style and tone.It can be stated that the film's strong visual aesthetics drastically short-change the characters and their acting abilities, which I don't think can be any further from the truth."Dick Tracy" relishes in its look and ghastly characters, and Beatty himself, who plays the dogged and incorruptible detective of the title, is appropriately stoic and ready to bust the bad guys at any and all costs.Other than the visual treats and Oscar-winning makeup, there is a plot, and Big Boy Caprice (Al Pacino, deliciously over-the-top in an Oscar-nominated performance), seeks to eliminate Tracy in one well-planned move, but also seeks to gain control of all criminal action in the city by uniting all the feuding gangs under him.Tracy, meanwhile, is juggling his relationship with Tess Trueheart (Glenne Headly), who as her name would have it, remains faithfully by his side and cares for The Kid (Charlie Korsmo), who eventually finds a father figure to look up to in our crime-busting hero. Tracy's fidelity to Tess is tested by the tempting advances of Breathless Mahoney (Madonna), who is also Big Boy's main squeeze. At the same time that all of this is going down, things become heated when a new criminal figure arrives in town, and decides to play both sides against the middle.The performances are good, as Beatty's focus on the strained and romantic relationships between each of the leads becomes the center of the material, as opposed to just concentrating on pointless action and special effects. Pacino freely chews up the scenery in a role that's truly standout from the rest."Dick Tracy" is one of the best and most overlooked of the comic book movie genre. I think that if Chester Gould was still alive, he would be proud of Warren Beatty's take on his beloved crime-fighting detective.8/10
| 1
|
train_1200
|
Have no illusions, this IS a morality story. Granger is the troubled ex-buffalo hunter, tempted back to the plains one more time by kill-crazed Taylor. Granger can see the end is near, and feels deeply for the cost of the hunt-on the herds, the Indians and the land itself. Taylor, on the other hand admittedly equates killing buffalo, or Indians to 'being with a woman.' While Granger's role of the tortured hunter is superb, it's Taylor who steals the show, as the demented, immoral 'everyman' out for the fast buck and the goodtimes. There's not a lot of bang-bang here, but the story moves along quickly, and we are treated to a fine character performance by Nolan. The theme of this story is just as poignant today, as in the 1800s-man's relationship to the land and what's on it, and racism. Considering when this was made, the Censors must have been wringing their hankies during the scenes in the 'bawdy house', Taylor's relationship with the squaw, and much of the dialogue. Although downbeat, this is truly a great western picture.
| 1
|
train_20247
|
Just the fact that the cover is a drawing, like those old B-movies should give you a warning about the quality of this movie. This is, however not a B-movie. It is a D-movie! There are no known actors, and the animals - WOW - it is the worst data-animation ever made during the last two decades. You hardly ever see the SCAAARY sabretooth shown on the front cover. You just hear people scream, bleed and die and you occasionally see a teeth or a tiger-paw. It's so amateur! Maybee worth seeing, just because it's so bad. Give it to a friend and say: "This is the best movie I have ever seen, and wait for their reaction" He, he. The movie is to weak to give it a Spoiler Alert! THIS IS A SPOILER.
| 0
|
train_17536
|
SWEET SIXTEEN (1983) **/***** 86 minutes Director Jim Sotos Cast Bo Hopkins, Susan Strasberg, Aleisa Shirley, Patrick Macnee, Dana KimmellFifteen year old bad girl Melissa is new in a desert town and it isn't long before folks around her start dying off. The detective has to put together the clues with the help of his Nancy Drew good girl daughter played by Friday the 13th alumni Dana Kimmell. The local Native Americans are prime suspects since they seem to upset the prejudiced townsfolk. These events all lead up to the revealing of the killer at Melissa's sixteenth birthday party.This below average slasher isn't too memorable. It has a made for TV feel, without much score besides the title character's own corny theme song which plays a couple times throughout. Lines like "the killer will turn us into coleslaw." Fit into standard eighties slasher screenplays. Marci calls Melissa a bad name then somehow immediately they develop a friendship. Apparently Marci sees how hard it is to fit in because Melissa knows how to wear make-up. This movie would be hard-pressed to be made today with the main character being fifteen and the director inserting multiple gratuitous close-ups of her. The social commentary on Indians wasn't developed enough to be taken seriously. I am too surprised at the fairly high rating this movie gets. Both Sweet Sixteen and Ed Hunt's Bloody Birthday had the potential to capitalize on that time honored tradition of the birthday party to create an intense sequence of carnage but I feel failed to deliver. But on the bright side releasing obscure movies like this on DVD gives hope that others will follow.
| 0
|
train_20563
|
I have anticipated the various Sci-fi and thriller type movies this summer but was so disappointed about this particular film. While some people walked out of the film, I decided to stay, only to laugh along with the other moviegoers at the acting, lack of suspense, ridiculous ending and difficult to follow story line. I found myself almost as confused as the main character in the film. The only redeeming quality of the film was the soundtrack. This is one of those budding star films which they later regret doing. In retrospect, I wouldn't even rent this one, let alone pay more than $5 to see.
| 0
|
train_7356
|
If you haven't seen Eva Longoria from the TV show "Desperate House Wives" then you are missing out. Eva is going to be one of the biggest Latina stars and you'll be seeing her in the theaters soon. This was Eva's first film and she does a fantastic job acting. She was 24 when she shot it, and looked hot then. As for this low budget film, it's pretty good for the first time director, who has another soon to be released movie "Juarez, Mexico" currently playing at many film festivals across the United States. In fact, it appears that it may have a limited theatrical release from some news. What would be nice to see is a "Snitch'2" with a higher budget.
| 1
|
train_13570
|
I have seen some bad movies (Austin Powers - The Spy Who Shagged Me, Batman Forever), but this film is so awful, so BORING, that I got about half way through and could not bear watching the rest. A pity. Boasting talent such as Kenneth Branagh, Embeth Davitz and Robert Duvall and a story by John Grisham, what went wrong? Branagh is a big-time lawyer who has a one-night fling with Davitz. Her father (Duvall) is a psychopath who hanged her cat, etc, etc, so Branagh has him sent to a nuthouse, and he promptly escapes. Somehow (I couldn't figure out how) Robert Downey jr, Daryl Hannah, Famke Janssen and Tom Berenger are all mixed into the story which moves slower than stationary. I wanted to like this, and, being a huge Grisham fan, have read all about this movie and I (foolishly) expected something interesting. This is honestly the WORST film I've seen to date and I wish I could have my money refunded. * out of *****.
| 0
|
train_21037
|
This movie got off to an interesting start. Down the road however, the story gets convoluted with a poor illustration of ancient black magic rituals. The male lead was very good , even though he gets the worst end of the stick in the climax. In comparison, this is "Boomerang" meets "Extremities".
| 0
|
train_8789
|
If you like original gut wrenching laughter you will like this movie. If you are young or old then you will love this movie, hell even my mom liked it.Great Camp!!!
| 1
|
train_4420
|
At two and a quarter hours this is a sometimes slow moving thoughtful film interrupted by vast sword battles. The battle between darkness and light is signified by the constant motif of the blazing sun and is superbly demonstrated by a three way fight between 'demons', bandits and soldiers in a forest during an eclipse.Be prepared: following a stunning sword fight under lightning filled skies the end of this picture will have you scratching your head in puzzlement.
| 1
|
train_4776
|
I was watching this movie at one of my usual time, which is real real late at night. Usually if a movie doesn't interest me, I start falling asleep and have to raid the fridge to stay awake.At first I thought that's what I had to do since this movie's pacing started off slow, along with the fact that its shots tended to linger with the character for a long time. But after a bit, I start getting more into the movie, as more is revealed about the main character through his story telling. By the end, you feel like you've known him your whole life. The movie kept my interest so much that I didn't even know the sun was about to rise.Not much of Lynch's bizzare style, but there is enough of quirky characters to make the film amusing.
| 1
|
train_19968
|
Probably the only thing that got the movie up to a four for me is the fact that I love Peter Falk. One of the world's great portrayers of bumbling incompetence . . . and yet he is one of the only anchors that prevents this from being a chaotic disaster. As Pops Romano, he provides a respectable mix of gangster charm and straight man to Chris Kattan's manic foolishness. Respectable performances are also offered by Richard Roundtree as the harried boss, Vinessa Shaw as a talented female FBI agent bouncing her head off a glass ceiling and Fred Ward as Falk's advisor and Benedict Arnold.The plot concept actually has some wonderful possibilities and, in the hands of a young Steve Martin or Chevy Chase, could have proved a great comedic vehicle. Kattan, who seems to idolize Ernest or Pee Wee Herman, just provides a muddled mess. Sadly, Peter Berg and Chris Penn, who portray his misfit brothers, both fall far short of their proven capability.There are some very funny scenes, but they are far too few and separated by way too many boring ones. What I truly miss here is what always attracted me to the Leslie Neilsen movies. There is no 'second level' of wit riding over the slapstick. No cultural references that only the adults get. . no double entendre. . it is just silly.And, by the way, this doesn't all mean that I am recommending it for your 9-year-old, because hopefully they have better taste and less fascination with some of their body parts and their functions.
| 0
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.