id
stringlengths 7
11
| text
stringlengths 52
10.2k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|---|
train_17566
|
This is the worst show. Buntch of grown up acting like kids no humor nothing. Even Sesame Street has better humor and more adult than friends "Friends" may be the worst thing I've ever seen on television and I've been sitting in front of the tube observing Friends" simply does not stack up well to other, contemporary series. It lacks the smartness of "Seinfeld" and the wonderful self-ridicule of pomposity that is the hallmark of "Frasier". The characters in "Friends" seem designed to make them repellant dullards. This incestuous group of neighbors makes my flesh crawl.The unintelligent show is completely without an edge of any sort. The characters are caricatures of caricatures and the writing is sophomoric -- though intentionally so. (It might be interesting to observe a writing session since the writers may have to slave to aim lower than their capabilities so as not to confuse the loyal friends of "Friends".)
| 0
|
train_972
|
Wow! So much fun! Probably a bit much for normal American kids, and really it's a stretch to call this a kid's film, this movie reminded me a quite a bit of Time Bandits - very Terry Gilliam all the way through. While the overall narrative is pretty much straight forward, Miike still throws in A LOT of surreal and Bunuel-esquire moments. The whole first act violently juxtaposes from scene to scene the normal family life of the main kid/hero, with the spirit world and the evil than is ensuing therein. And while the ending does have a bit of an ambiguous aspect that are common of Miike's work, the layers of meaning and metaphor, particularly the anti-war / anti-revenge message of human folly, is pretty damn poignant. As manic and imaginatively fun as other great Miike films, only instead of over the top torture and gore, he gives us an endless amount of monsters and yokai from Japanese folk-lore creatively conceived via CG and puppetry wrapped into an imaginative multi-faceted adventure. F'n rad, and one of Miike's best!
| 1
|
train_12754
|
Ah, Bait. How do I hate thee? Let me count the ways. 1. You try to be funny, but are corny and unenjoyable; every joke is predictable and expected, and when it comes, does not inspire laughter. Instead, I want to hurl. 2. You try to be dramatic, but are unbelievable; the woman overacts to a terrible degree, and the "bad guy" looks like Bill Gates, and is about as scary as...well, Bill Gates. (Just try to imagine Bill Gates trying to intimidate somebody with a gun. Doesn't work, does it? A lawyer, maybe, but not a gun. Doesn't fit.) As for Jamie Foxx, well, just watching him try to deliver a dramatic and heartfelt dialogue is ludicrous, and makes me want to hurl. 3. You try to be action-packed, but instead are dull and dragging too many times. And when the action heats up, the tripod for the camera must have been lost, for the scenes wobble more than those in The Blair Witch Project, and I find myself nauseated, and once again I want to hurl. 4. You try to be a good movie, but you failed, you FAILED, YOU FAILED! I would rather walk barefoot across the Sahara with a pack full of beef jerky and no water, no sunscreen, and only Meryl Streep for company. This hell would be lovelier than a single minute more spent watching everyone in Bait overact their way through an idiotically written story with Bill Gates for a bad guy, and let's not even talk about the massive bomb that goes off in a car that Jamie Foxx's character has just driven OFF A CLIFF, but somehow manages to escape...just kill me now, or do the right thing and promise me that somehow I'll never have to watch a movie that is this bad, ever again.
| 0
|
train_16416
|
We all know a movie never does complete justice to the book, but this is exceptional. Important characters were cut out, Blanca and Alba were essentially mushed into the same character, most of the subplots and major elements of the main plot were eliminated. Clara's clairvoyance was extremely downplayed, making her seem like a much more shallow character than the one I got to know in the book. In the book we learn more about her powers and the important effects she had on so many people, which in turn was a key element in the life of the family. In the movie she was no more than some special lady. The relationship between Esteban and Pedro Tercero (Tercero-third-, by the way, is the son and thus comes after Segundo-second-) and its connections to that between Esteban and his grandson from Pancha García (not son, who he also did recognize) is chopped in half and its importance downplayed.One of the most fundamental things about the book that the film is all but stripped of: this is called "The House of the Spirits." Where is the house? The story of 3-4 generations of a family is supposed to revolve around the "big house on the corner," a line stated so many times in the novel. The house in fundamental to the story, but the movie unjustly relegates it to a mere backdrop.If I hadn't read the book before, I would have never guessed that such a sappy, shallow movie could be based on such a rich and entertaining novel.
| 0
|
train_1816
|
Lots of reviews on this page mention that this movie is a little dark for kids. That depends on the kid. This isn't a movie for a 2-6 year old; it's more geared toward the 8 years and older crowd. I saw this movie when I was 10, I absolutely loved it. At the time most animated movies were a little too childish for my tastes. This movie deals with more serious issues, and therefore has a little more emotional impact. In this movie characters can DIE, and be sent to HELL! This gives a little more emotional weight to the scenes where characters are risking their lives. The good guys aren't always perfectly sweet and nice (like other cartoons). They have "real" motivations, like revenge, and greed, but also compassion and friendship; shows that things aren't always black and white.Excellent Movie
| 1
|
train_5703
|
I'm a fan of Crash and Blade Runner and this movie explores some of those highway death and 80s film noir themes that I like to see, so I enjoyed it.In general though, the essential stupidity of the film noir protagonist is not pulled off well by the female lead and her hero is nearly a neanderthal, hence the kitch warning.
| 1
|
train_8733
|
When I bought my Toy Story tape when it came out to Video after being released in theaters I saw a trailer for this that said from the creators of Toy Story. As soon as I saw that I knew this was gonna be a good feature! I was right! A Bug's Life like Toy Story is great story, great characters and great animation. My favorite characters are Dim the rhino Beetle voiced by Brad Garrett and Hemlich the Caterpillar voiced by the late Pixar Storyman Joe Ranft. My favorite scene is when Slim the walking stick (David Hyde Pierce) lifts up Hemlich trying to distract the Bird and Hemlich's like You hoo Mr. Early Bird. How about a nice tasting worm on a stick and Slim's like I'm going to snap! I'm going to snap! I just died laughing at that scene. Being a big fan of insects I think A Bug's Life is my favorite Pixar even though I know a lot of people consider it the worst Pixar film ever! I don't know how you could hate a Pixar film! I think they're all pretty good films! Good job PIXAR!
| 1
|
train_3713
|
With this movie, it's all about style, atmosphere, and acting. True, I didn't believe all of the plot developments, but it didn't matter- the terrific acting, the unexpected plot twists, and the wonderful atmosphere sucked me right in, and carried me along for the ride, and I had a great time. Kenneth Branagh is not only a great actor but a master of accents, and he proves it once again with a flawless Georgia accent. He's surrounded by so much talent in supporting roles (Robert Downey, Jr., Embeth Davidtz from Schindler's List and Fallen, Tom Berenger, Daryl Hannah, and Robert Duvall) that I was simply blown away. I recently bought a copy of this movie, and I never tire of watching it. Simply one of the best thrillers of the year. If you've ignored this movie (and chances are you have), then I suggest you check it out.
| 1
|
train_17760
|
Normally, I have no problem with a movie or story with an ending that leaves you wondering to puzzle out what really happened, when it's done on purpose...But this movie really feels like they got all but the last 15 minutes done, then realized they had $5 left to finish on...I saw it on TBS... I recommend you not spend money on it either. If you catch it on TV, watch all but the last 15 minutes, then walk away and make your own ending in your mind.Really, the movie would have been better if they had simply got away, and come back with the State Poice of Feds only to find that the town and the car graveyard was gone, and by all appearances had never been there..."Wish I had more thumbs, so I could give that movie 4 thumbs down!"
| 0
|
train_4413
|
Dreaming of Julia was the title of the original script, and was filmed in the summer of 2000 in Santo Domingo Republica Dominicana. To release the picture they change the original name to Cuba Libre. The director's cut was 3 and a half hours long. It was released on the festival of Bangkok in Thailand. It was the second film of Gael García Bernal (the first was Amores Perros)and the first of Juan Gerard as a Director. In the poster the names of Diana Bracho and Cecilia Suares does not appear. Diana plays the grandmother and Cecilia the mother of the kid. They are great actresses and they keep the story together specially Diana. Check her out in other things you would be surprised.
| 1
|
train_268
|
I loved Dedee Pfeiffer (is that spelled right?) in Cybil. Haven't seen her for awhile and forgot how much I missed her. I thought she did a great job in this. The supporting cast was pretty good too. In some angles, the daughter even looked like a young Nicole Kidman. The abductor was pretty creepy and the story generally had some good twists. The young boyfriend was a hottie. I thought the husband definitely had something to do with it for sure.Just got the Lifetime Movie Network for Christmas and am loving these movies. Kept my interest and I'll watch it again when they rerun it. Can anyone else recommend any similar movies to this? You can post on the board or send me a private email if you want. Thanks in advance. Aboutagirly.
| 1
|
train_18258
|
You could say that the actors will make a movie, but this clearly proves that statement wrong. Most of the characters in this film lack anything to hold on to. They play the part of cardboard cut outs being moved about in predictable and uninteresting ways. The story is very simple. It could be summed up in a few words, but I'll hold back in case anyone reading does want to see this film.I had to fast forward the parts where Jack showed us how to be an obnoxious eater. I'd have to say that 70% of this film revolved around cooking, eating, or getting ready to eat. Quite frankly, I'd rather not spend my time watching Jack chew noisily with an open mouth. Personally, I could have done without the footwear references and jokes that pepper the first half of the film too.Outside of my own personal dementia, the film really lacked anything worth it's time. There were countless scenes and camera shots that felt like it was dragging. When something happens, the reactions of the characters are vague and dry.Best not to look this one up.
| 0
|
train_18072
|
Yet another colourful excuse for men in rubber suits to wrestle with each other. This time around, time travellers from the future arrive in 1992 and recruit a few people to go back with them to 1944 and prevent the creation of Godzilla, thus saving a future Japan from destruction. But having accomplished this task, the time travellers are revealed to be a bunch of double crossers whose own creature goes on the rampage, and with no Godzilla to stop it
Eek! It all sounds very silly, and it probably is, but the plot is surprisingly decent and the final battle looks pretty good too. Unfortunately the rest of the visual effects are just rubbish rather than enjoyably rubbish, and the movie turns out to be just as dull as its predecessors. Look out for the shaky Spielberg in-joke.
| 0
|
train_11790
|
David Lynch's new short is a very "Lynchian" piece, full of darkness, tension, silences, discreet but very textured background music, and features again two beautiful actresses, a blonde and a brunette, a recurrent theme in his work.Both characters create a very intriguing slave-mistress relationship that could be seen as a direct follow up to the same kind of relationship featured in Mulholland Dr.Beautiful. For Lynch fan's.
| 1
|
train_14535
|
I have been learning about the Zodiac for four years now. And I'm not saying I know much more than anyone else...in fact out of most of the people who know and read and learn about Z, I am prolly the one with the least knowledge...But I do know or at least I think I know that most of the stuff in this wouldn't happen...From how he signed his name...to how he killed people...I thought that Godfather was the worst film ever...The cinematography was that of a five year old...not saying that my films are any better but I am not someone who is making movies for the mass population...The acting I thought for the most part was pretty good really I did...the lead didn't talk that much on camera or at all I forget and don't know because I stopped watching...his voice overs where good...But really spend the four dollars and 70 cents on something else...like a large pizza or something...Until I learn how to write a review, Psycho Phil
| 0
|
train_5242
|
I quite enjoyed this movie for two reasons. The first is that it gives an insight into the world of loyalism in northern ireland, which is very rarely treated in movies, most of which tell us about the republican struggle. The second reason is the performances of the actors. I thought they gave very honest and convincing portrayals of a very seedy underworld that not many people hear about outside my native shores.All in all, it is an entertaining ganster movie with stellar performances from a who's who in northern irish actors cast. It wont move the earth, although it may slightly open some peoples eyes to the murky world of loyalist paramilitaries.
| 1
|
train_17165
|
I really wanted to like The Pillow Book. Intriguing story, interesting character outlines, Ewan Macgregor in the utterly glorious altogether. Unfortunately, I hated every minute of it. Greenaway got so enamoured with presenting the movie uniquely, and not to the film's benefit. I won't even get into Vivian Wu's abysmal acting.You get distracted from the story with 4 billion teeny windows and calligraphy that rolls on the bottom of the screen displaying the lyrics of the music that's playing. It seems he lost sight of presenting the actual story and developing the plot, and got entangled with foo-foo embellishments that have nothing to do with anything. It's a bit like presenting a John Singer Sargeant portrait in a chintzy Hallmark frame that says "GRANDMA LOVES ME!" in big sparkly letters.This movie seems to be a casualty of the director auteur's ego instead of what it could have been - disturbingly and horrifyingly beautiful. In another director's hands (Jeunet? Coppola?), it could have been a masterpiece. In Greenaway's hands, it's best relegated to fine arts classes that also take themselves too seriously.
| 0
|
train_10165
|
Actually my vote is a 7.5. Anyway, the movie was good, it has those funny parts that make it deserve to see it, don't misunderstand me, is not the funniest movie of the world, and its not even original because its a idea that we have seen before in other movies, but this one has its own taste, a friend of mine told me that this was a film for boyfriends... I think that not exactly but who cares? Also there is another movie that show us almost the same topic, Chris Rock appears in it, the name is Down to Earth, men, that one its a very funny movie, see both if you want and I know that you will agree that Mr. Rock won with his movie. I would liked that the protagonist male character were given to Ashton Kutcher, however, the film is good.
| 1
|
train_24524
|
Quite the most boring nonsense I have seen in a long time. The plot was full of irrelevance, and the acting was the worst I have seen in a long time.To make it worse, camera angles that made me feel sick were used , the incidental music was terrible and drowned out the dialogue (maybe not a bad thing then), and the shots of San Francisco looked as if they had been stolen straight out of the city tourist board's promotional video.Oh, and the obligatory sex scene was not even half well done. Better lighting next time, please.
| 0
|
train_11253
|
This is an extremely long movie, which means you may become very bored before it becomes interesting, but its length provides opportunity for its characters to find permanent attachment in your sympathies.If you are moved by the guilt of the loathsome you will find it particularly heart-wrenching, because it is a story that finds its heroes among the evil and the weak. If you can love a monster you'll cry for Magnus Pym, the spy who betrays everyone - notably his country, his friends and family - a man who has also been manipulated and moulded since childhood by those same people.There isn't one truly likeable character in the entire story, not one loyal, 'moral' personality to sympathise with. But watching the whole thing without the help of a tissue would be quite remarkable.I really enjoyed it in the end. Well worth it for people who like inciteful movies about baser human character.
| 1
|
train_10245
|
this was a personal favorite of mine when i was young, it had everything that was great with 90's kids movies... lovable dinosaurs, cute kids, an eccentric villain, and a few great songs (and not the typical little mermaid/beauty and the beast type songs, but ones that are atually entertaining)! i ran into this movie again recently and i still love it as much as ever! i recommend that everyone of every age should see this movie, and i definitely think that it should be introduced to the younger generations! sorry not the most informative, i'm in kinda a rush... just please, trust me. all who go against this movie are killing their inner child!
| 1
|
train_13397
|
Two years before he wrote and directed "Arthur", Steve Gordon had a minor hit with his screenplay for this crackpot comedic vehicle for Henry Winkler, then TV's "The Fonz". A 1950s college thespian (and all-around jerk) woos a co-ed and gets married without any employment prospects on the horizon; to make ends meet, he turns to the flamboyant world of wrestling, eventually becoming a "Gorgeous George"-like celebrity. Turning likable Winkler into an obnoxious goof-off probably sounded like an interesting idea at the time (and a sure way to separate him from his television alter-ego), but the jokes and situations are often wrong-headed and mean, staged rather sloppily by director Carl Reiner. Particularly crude is a wincing bit involving Hervé Villechaize (of "Fantasy Island") putting the moves on Polly Holliday (Flo from "Alice"). As Henry's beloved, Kim Darby looks a little out of her element--particularly when surrounded by all these TV hams--rendering the romance aspect of the script inconsequential. *1/2 from ****
| 0
|
train_6296
|
Parker (Johnathan Schaech) is an aspiring writer who is still looking for his big break. In the meantime, he works as a telephone adviser for a Manhattan psychic hotline. One day, most unfortunately, his apartment building burns down. Parker and his cat make it out alive but are now stuck with the arduous task of finding affordable housing in the Big Apple. Word comes to Parker that a lady, Samantha (Alison Eastwood) is searching for a roommate but will only accept a gay male. Since Parker is straight but the price is right, he decides to pretend that he is gay. Samantha likes him from the start and welcomes him as her new cohabitant. But, poor Parker. Sam is lovely, intelligent and very desirable. How will he be able to keep his true nature under control? Besides, doesn't Sam have a successful businessman-boyfriend anyway? This is a sweet, likable, and humorous film with two very attractive stars in Eastwood and Schaech. Naturally, the plot is a string of "how can I keep up this ruse" scenes, with Sam asking Parker for shampoo while she is showering or pleading with him to hold her in bed when she receives bad news. Also, it is necessary for Parker to produce his own "fake" gay mate, Boris, when Sam insists upon fixing him up with a man she knows. Hopefully, the gay community will not find this too offensive, as this viewer thought most issues were treated with sensitivity and subtlety. For a small scale movie, the costumes, sets, and camera work were quite nice, also. Therefore, if you love those funny tales of love, get this one soon. You will like what you see, I know it.
| 1
|
train_7020
|
*I mark where there are spoilers! Overall comments: If you can take a serious movie, go see this. Have an open mind and you will enjoy it. Don't leave the theater because you get confused as to what is going on! The movie fits together nicely in the second half. I will be taking my mom to see it again when the movie officially opens. I was lucky to see this at a screening a couple of weeks ago, when Will was going around promoting the movie. He was great--spent a lot of time with the fans. Thank you for the picture Will! About Will's performance: A lot of times when you see a movie with an actor really famous for some other movie/show, you always think of them in their current performance much like you think of them for their past performance. This is not the case with Will Smith in this movie. I didn't picture the Fresh Prince (lol) when I was watching this movie. He was completely and utterly convincing in this very, very serious role. He has grown immensely as an actor. I think he will at least get an Oscar nod for this performance.About his character: Ben is very conflicted and tormented. He's sad...guilt-ridden...very determined, but very scared. Very true to himself. His character has a lot of depth...and somehow, Will managed to bring that to life.About Emily (Rosario): Rosario did a nice job portraying Emily, a woman very much behind on her taxes. Maybe she's not the shining star Will is in this movie, but she was very convincing. I think her character just did not have as much to work with as Will's did.About the plot (no spoilers): I admit that I did NOT like the movie until the second half of it. I knew absolutely nothing about the movie going into it, and nothing made sense until the second part of it or so. But when things eventually fit together, wow. Surprisingly well written and well thought out. It's an extremely intense movie that really sticks with you.It actually takes a lot out of you to watch. In the theater I was in, most people were crying towards the end--even grown men. When you realize what Ben is doing, and why, it's a very powerful moment...******* Minor SPOILERS***** Which is why it's really hard to talk about the plot without giving major things away. I feel like knowing too much about this movie really ruins it. There was a lot of symbolism in the movie that I enjoyed, though. I will mention some of it here (without trying to give a lot away).-The fish that Ben was keeping in his hotel room. At first, it makes no sense whatsoever. There was a LOT of chatter in the movie theater when people realized the reality of the fish.-I hated Ben at the beginning of the movie. By the end of it, I loved him and hated him. That's how convincing Will was. I thought Ben was being a huge jerk to Ezra, a blind man just trying to make his way in the world. Why he was treating Ezra like that also became abundantly clear later in the movie. Wait it out though. Everything in this movie: wait it out.-Ben is a fundamentally good person who made a big mistake that he won't forgive himself for. It's still unclear to me if he was doing what he was doing because he was trying to rid himself of his own guilt, or if he genuinely wanted to help people. I think it's a little bit of both...I think he wanted to help people but also rid himself of his past. I love his character. You love him and hate him because you realize that what he is doing is nothing short of amazing. You hate him because of what he is doing to himself (as a very good person), both physically and emotionally. Nice job Will.
| 1
|
train_9988
|
What I loved about the on-screen adaptation of The Stone Angel is that it stayed so true to the novel! Great film! As an avid reader, I find the worst thing about film adaptations is that the book somehow gets lost in translation. You can tell the Stone Angel team was careful not to let this happen with this film.Ellen Burstyn was an excellent casting choice for the role of Hagar and she is definitely a movie superstar. However, I think the Canadian actress (Christine Horne) chosen to play Hagar in her younger years also did an incredible job that warrants great praise. I haven't seen any of Horne's previous work but I will definitely seek it out after seeing her Stone Angel performance.I heard the Canadian theatrical release of The Stone Angel is going to happen in Spring or Summer 2008. I can't wait to see it on the big screen again!
| 1
|
train_4216
|
Pickup On South Street is one of the most brilliant movies ever made. An example of the directing: When Candy (Jean Peters) starts going through her purse and notices her wallet is missing, an alarm goes off in the background in the building she's in -- as if it's an alarm going off in her head. It's not cartoon-like -- it's subtly woven into the background in a way that strikes you on a subconscious level until you've seen the film a few times and it just "clicks" that there's an alarm bell going off when she starts frantically going through her bag.Richard Widmark is way on top of his game as a smart-alec -- he's really great -- but the highlight performance of the film was the first scene for "Moe," the street peddler/informer, played by Thelma Ritter. Later, in her apartment, you are not seeing a movie -- you're seeing a real person. I've never seen anyone "act" so real I felt like I was looking into a real room until Ritter's performance -- right down to the way her hair stuck out a bit when she removed her hat. About a million other things just *worked,* from the way Lightning Louie picks up money with his chopsticks to the way Candy's jewelry clicks when she flicks Moe's hand away from her brooch, to the way Moe gets the dollars and change from the police captain across the FBI guy's chest -- and even the way the captain opens his filing cabinet, like he's been doing it in that way in that room for many years. "Pickup On South Street" is detailed moves (directing) with consummate performances (acting) and superb now-nostalgic visuals of the day, such as the panel truck, the boards leading to the shack out on the water, the dumbwaiter, -- and the unforgettable place Skip stashes his pocket pickings. Wonderful stuff."Pickup On South Street" is also one of the few movies where, even though the characters aren't perfect, you do care about them -- perhaps because they have been somewhat branded by their pasts in ways that are hard to escape: Skip as a "three-time loser" and Candy as a youngish woman who has "knocked around" a lot. When these people behave a little more badly than you'd expect, it's in sort of novel ways that make it seem you're looking in at people you'd never otherwise imagine -- and yet you know that they are possible because the actors make them so recognizably human.
| 1
|
train_12090
|
I saw this film when I was 10 or 11 years old, alone in my parent's basement on a Saturday night. It was being shown on "Chiller Theatre," a regular fright feature that I watched religiously as a young 'un. Now, I have seen many old horror films thanks to Chiller Theatre, but none ever stuck with me like "Danse Macabre," a.k.a. "Castle of Blood." I am 51 now, and only last year was I fortunate enough to locate a relatively recent, quality DVD edition of this wonderfully shudder-inducing supernatural classic, having thought I'd never manage to see it again. I have already watched it four more times, and cannot seem to get tired of it.They just don't make spook films like this one anymore. Haunted catacombs and mist-enshrouded graveyards just don't work as well in color as they did in black and white back in the day. Anyway, this one has Edgar Allen Poe and Barbara Steele, deliciously shadowy, cobweb-wrap'ed haunted castle sets, restless spirits re-enacting their deaths... and a wickedly ironic ending.IMO, this one's right up there with Robert Wise's "The Haunting," "The Innocents" (with Deborah Kerr), and the more recent "The Others."
| 1
|
train_11706
|
To all the reviewers on this page, I would have to say this movie is worth seeing. So It was made in 1972, so what. The fashion in the movie was exactly the same fashion of its time. People who didn't study culture of the decades would think that this movie is a cheese ball. Compared to the modern series, `Left Behind,' (Which is made for our time right now) it does look cheezy. However, the only cheezy part of the movie is the fashion, which again was over 30 years in the past. BUT. The message that is sent in this film is very powerful, and carefully preserved. There is just so much to say, but I refuse to say it. (for fear of spoiling it) So go out and see this film! If you don't like the message that it sends, then you have issues, that need some attention!
| 1
|
train_12021
|
This hard-hitting, often violent western in the Peckinpah/Leone tradition is surprisingly directed by Andrew V. McLaglen, whose previous westerns (particularly those that starred John Wayne) were mainly in the John Ford mode. It is both surprisingly traditional (good guys/bad guys) and incredible up-to-date as well.Heston portrays a former captain of the Arizona territorial police who has been in retirement for a year, having turned over the law enforcement reins to a reform-minded sheriff (Michael Parks) and finding his ways of enforcing the law being taken over by autos, telegraphs, telephones, and the railroad in the first years of the 20th century. But soon he is confronted with a menace from his past--a half-breed outlaw (Coburn) that he put away more than a decade before for a train robbery that killed four guards. In a subsequent shootout, Coburn's wife was killed; and so Coburn is out for a most nasty sort of revenge. It involves the kidnapping and, eventually, the rape of Heston's daughter (Hershey) by him and his gang. The result is a taut and violent pursuit through the mountains and deserts of southern Arizona.THE LAST HARD MEN, based on Brian Garfield's novel "Gun Down", is violent in many places, including the showdown between Heston and Coburn, and the rape scene involving Hershey and two members of Coburn's gang (Quade, Paull) is probably every bit as questionable as similar scenes in STRAW DOGS and DELIVERANCE. But that doesn't detract too terribly much from the film's psychological approach to the western genre. McLaglen is able to handle the bloody story with significant panache, and Heston's performance as an aging lawman was probably the best one he ever gave in any of his 1970s films. Coburn makes for an especially cold-blooded heavy, and both Parks and Chris Mitchum (as Hershey's intended husband) do good turns as well. The music here is cribbed from Jerry Goldsmith's scores to 100 RIFLES and the 1966 remake of STAGECOACH, but it still works here.Wisely filmed totally on location in southeastern Arizona, and utilizing the Old Tucson set, THE LAST HARD MEN needs to be released by Fox on VHS and/or DVD soon. It is a western that deserves nothing less.
| 1
|
train_17683
|
This is the first of these "8 Films To Die For" collection that I've seen and it's certainly not made me want to see any of the rest...although I've heard at least a couple of them are decent. I don't know, this wasn't terrible but it didn't really do much for me. Your basic dysfunctional cannibal family in suburbia kind of thing, mom & dad died, the family sold the farm & moved to San Francisco (?) where they continued to bring home stray food sources whenever possible. The best part of this was the creepy Goth sister, who of course invites a friend over from school that never leaves. Anyway, of course we have a butcher shop in the basement and so on and so on. This family is sort of like the white-bread version of the Sawyer Clan, they're nasty & they do bad things but they ain't go no soul. I see a lot of reviews from people that liked this, and I guess I don't know what I missed, but I found it to be very mediocre & I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, really. 4 out of 10.
| 0
|
train_15860
|
Somewhere in his non-fiction book DANSE MACABRE, Stephen King suggests that one secret of writing scary stories is to avoid showing your readers exactly what horrible thing is waiting behind the door to get them. If at last the door bursts open and a bug ten feet tall lurches through, the reader may be a little scared, but he'll also think, "Well, I can deal with that. At least it wasn't a HUNDRED feet tall." There's nothing more frightening than what lurks, unseen and unknown, just on the other side of that tightly closed door, waiting to get you.THE HAUNTING is so completely misconceived that director Jan De Bont more or less starts off his movie by metaphorically throwing open that door himself and yelling: "Look, everybody, look! It's a ten-foot-tall bug! Isn't that SCARY?!" The law of diminishing returns immediately kicks in. By the end of the movie, the director is, so to speak, jumping up and down, banging his CGI pots and pans madly, and hoarsely screaming: "Look, everyone, look! Here come ten HUNDRED-foot-tall bugs! ... And now, here come a hundred THOUSAND-foot-tall bugs!" The filmmakers apparently believed that special effects alone could compensate for all the other shortcomings in this endeavor (and there are many). They can't and don't. In fact, impressive as they are, the special effects are so insistent and obtrusive that the distracted viewer winds up staring at them -- whether in admiration or annoyance -- instead of being immersed in a story.For me, the nadir of this film's sheer stupidity comes when a statue, with "blood" gushing from its mouth, tries to drown Liam Neeson (as Dr. Marrow) in a fountain. The filmmakers clearly didn't know what to do with this alleged idea once they had it, so they just have Neeson thrash around in the water a bit, flailing his arms and going glug-glug. By the next scene, the good doctor has apparently dried himself off and, ho hum, forgotten all about the annoying incident.Shirley Jackson's novel seems to have been dumbed-down into this ridiculous screenplay by a committee of low-IQ teenage stoners who thought the way to frighten people was to make every effect bigger and louder: "Okay, next, let's, uh, make the ceiling, you know, look like a creepy face, and, uh, come down on her ... and all these spiky things, like, trap her in the bed."The sole saving grace of THE HAUNTING is that it at last becomes so awful that it's actually funny. By the time Owen Wilson (as Luke Sanderson) fell on the floor and then went on his Magic-Carpet Ride O' Death, I just about fell on the floor myself, laughing.Badly constructed, witless, grotesquely heavy-handed, utterly unbelievable, and filled with clunky dialogue and pointless scenes, this vacuous HAUNTING is a textbook example of how NOT to make a horror movie.
| 0
|
train_1523
|
GBS wrote his own screen adaptation of this Nobel Prize winning play but didn't live to see it produced (he had won an Oscar in 1938 for his brilliant adaptation of his 1914 play PYGMALION). When Otto Preminger mounted (produced and directed) this production in 1957, seven years after Shaw's death, he had noted British author Graham Greene do the adaptation and it was a solid choice.Taking a cue from Shaw's own screenplay, Greene uses material from the stage Epilogue to create a framing device to meld the two acts of the play (one early and one late in Joan's story) into a unified and most satisfying whole. Where on stage the shift in tone is buffered with an intermission, here it works just as well with a return to KING Charles Balois's bedchamber (where the man Joan put on the throne is dreaming of the events which led to his current situation), and more material from Shaw's Epilogue - the introduction of the shade of John Gielgud's Warwick (the English "king maker").The majority of the language is solid GBS, and the performances from stalwart Shauvians (like Felix Aymler's Inquisitor or Harry Andrews' de Stogumber) to relative newcomers (the film established Jean Seberg's career) are first rate. It may jar some, only familiar with Richard Widmark's many movie villains, to see him playing a frail and somewhat silly Dauphin, but the performance - oddly top billed - is professional, even if arguably miscast.The symbolism of the opening credits and the director's choice to use the visual vocabulary of black and white filming all serve Shaw and the story well. Go in expecting quality entertainment and you won't be disappointed.
| 1
|
train_17018
|
Few movies have dashed expectations and upset me as much as Fire has. The movie is pretentious garbage. It does not achieve anything at an artistic level. The only thing it managed to receive is a ban in India. If only it was because of the poor quality of film making rather than the topical controversy, the ban would have been more justifiable.Now that I've got my distress out of my system, I am more able to analyse the movie: * From the onset the movie feels unreal especially when the protagonists start conversing in English. The director, of course, did not make the movie for an Indian audience; however it underestimated its international audiences by over simplifying it. Watching the character of the domestic help conversing in perfect English is too unreal to be true.* Next we get regular glimpses into Radha's dreams. These scenes are not very effective. They coming up as jarring and obstruct the flow of the movie. I'm still wondering how that philosophical dialogue connected to the story. I felt that the surrealism was lost.* The love scenes felt voyeuristic and are probably meant for audience titillation rather than being a powerful statement. In any case, they do not achieve either of the two.* The names chosen for the women, Radha and Sita, are names of Hindu deities and hence been selected to shock the audiences. However, since the film wasn't meant for Indian audiences in the first place, the shock-through-name-selection is not meant to achieve its goal, which is absurd.* The quality of direction is very poor and some key and delicate scenes have been poorly handled. A better director could have made a powerful emotional drama out of the subject.* The acting felt wooden although Nandita Das brought some life into the role, the others were wasted. I always thought that Shabana Azmi was a good actress but her talent is not evident in this film. The male leads were outright rubbish.In case you are a fan of Earth and wish to see more of the director, stay away from this one. Please.
| 0
|
train_15726
|
We have reached the ceiling of implausibility with this movie. Basically, Dinosaurs come aboard this ship piloted by some weird old fart named Neweyes(which I needed after I watched this movie). Apparently, Neweyes hears the wishes of children everywhere and decides that he should grant the wish of children that Dinosaurs be brought into modern times to be seen by everybody for shameless exploitation. The dinosaurs eat this stuff that makes them smarter(Too bad the screenwriters didn't have it). By the way, does it seem weird that out of ALL the wishes of the children in the world, Neweyes grants the wish of bringing Dinosaurs to modern times? Why not grant the wishes of kids to stop famine? Disease? War? I mean come on! Doesn't Neweyes have anything better to do with all this power he has??? Finally, when the Dinosaurs get to modern times they start singing, dancing and wrecking havoc(basically the kind of thing you might see on a bad LSD trip, I mean where else could you see a T-Rex playing golf and jumping on a balloon of Spider-man?). They end up in the circus and Neweyes Brother Screweyes(???) makes the kids that have befriended the dinosaurs sign a blank contract. Why? Why would kids sign a blank contract??? Screweyes says that if the dinosaurs take some..."Brain-Drain" That he will let the children go. The dinosaurs instead of tearing apart the evil Screweyes limb from limb, give in and agree to his terms. What?! This is stupid! They could have just menaced him, made him drop the contract, eaten it then walked off with the kids. I think the filmmakers were trying to show that violence is bad, which is a moot point when finally the dinosaurs escape and a bunch of crows envelop Screweyes and apparently completely eat him. Oh yeah, that's not violent at all! We're back makes no sense, it's not fun, it's goofy, it's stupid, poorly written and contains some of the biggest plot holes ever committed to film. Even for a kid's film... this is BAD.
| 0
|
train_22792
|
It has its merit's; Morvern Callar is both the merits and the disappointments. She's so enigmatic, so original. Is it her method of dealing with the pain of a lost one that's making her so distant and un-relatable? Or is she as one reviewer called her a revolutionary? Personally I'd call her dysfunctional.Morvern is completely detaching herself. Disposing of her boyfriend, not thinking of informing family or using the money he gave her for a proper funeral, she selfishly splashes out on a trip to Spain. She's seems so devoid of anything relatively human bar greed. The only element that enables the audience see the human side of her is her close friend she takes on holiday with her. Although by the end her friend is dumped and Morvern has nothing that ties her down to humanity. She may as well have killed herself.Despite managing to make Spain look as gloomy and bland as the UK the director's shots were superb, the lighting and color made the film visually stunning.It's really a shame the movie has nothing in it that keeps interest. It's little over 90 minutes but feels a lot longer. They manage to make Morvern seem interesting to grab your attention but do nothing with her only alienate her from you more to the point where you don't care about the characters or the film.
| 0
|
train_13705
|
What's this? A Canadian produced zombie flick that I have never heard of before. A mortician works on the body of a recently deceased young man. This allows for an extended flashback that show how the guy got there. Basically, he and friends went to a cemetery on Friday the 13th and raised the dead thanks to his silly chanting. Cut back to the morgue where our dead body comes back to life and kills the mortician and owner (who gets his eyes popped out). The final WTF? shot has the funeral home owner in a straight jacket and screaming, "I'm not crazy!" Amazingly, he has his eyeballs back.Running a scant 58 minutes, this is certainly one oddity in zombie cinema. It feels a lot longer, but put me in some kind of trance where I couldn't stop watching. The film also has one of those "if you see this image, turn away from the screen" gags. It is the image of an old man getting sick in a theater (prophetic?) and when he pops up (only twice) the blood begins to flow. The scenes are pretty damn gory for the time period. There is a great gaffe where a zombie chops off a girl's right hand with a shovel, but - when he pulls the fake hand into the frame to chomp on - it is a left hand.
| 0
|
train_20337
|
The majority of Stephen King's short stories are little gems, with original ideas that don't take a long time to develop; basically lean and mean--he sets them up quickly in a scarce number of pages, you read 'em, and you're finished before you know you've begun. They're like the equivalent of a carton of McDonald's fries--they taste Really good and you know there's not much nutritional value in them (re: from a literary standpoint, they don't say much about the universal human condition), but you're still gonna scarf 'em down, just don't be a pig and go for the extra-super-sized portion and fill up on too much grease ("too much grease" is a metaphor for the prose in King's novels when find yourself reading one of them and saying come on--enough with the pop-cultural observations or clever Yankee asides--get on with the story already!) He has compiled four books of short story collections. I've read them all--from NightShift to the latest, Everything's Eventual, and they all display an efficiency of getting-to-the-point which is sometimes sorely lacking in his tome-sized novels.But his short stories never overstay their welcome...which brings us to the TV adaptations of Nightmares And Dreamscapes...How in the hell did they (the series' producers) get a green-light to turn stories that usually averaged 15 pages into 50 minute episodes? I'll tell you how--two words--"Stephen King." Stories with his name on them probably didn't come cheap, and one hour shows enable more advertising than half hour ones, so...what should have been an anthology of mostly 23 or 24 minute episodes is turned into double that length, and double the commercial time...Ka-Ching!I'm not going to waste time synopsizing the plots of these stories--this review supposes you have already read the stories and/or seen the show; what follows is merely my gut reactions to what TNT presented... Of the four installments so far, here's my ten cent assessment (from first to worst): Battleground-- Not a classic by any means, but hey, how could anyone argue with keeping William Hurt from opening his trap by filming this episode without a single line of dialog? And the tongue-in-cheek reference and destruction of the killer Zuni doll from Trilogy Of Terror proved to me the producers (and the writer of the teleplay, who is Richard Matheson's son--the writer of TOT) knew their mission with this one was to make the action deadly, yet at the same time, fun. It took longer to get to Hurt's apartment than it should have, but I think it fulfilled it's objective. 8/10Umney's Last Case-- Liked this one primarily because of William H. Macy's performance. I think the writer/Umney should have appeared in the story sooner into the private eye/Umney beginning because he was the actual reality of the story, and anyone familiar with the King short story (probably half, if not more of the audience) knew the Chandleresque set-up was due to get interrupted by the writer's reality, so let's get on with it already, and cut-out the cute and clever hard-boiled repartee' Private Dick banter already. Once the writer/Umney's family tragedy began to reveal though, I thought the show developed an emotional connection that made the viewer (me, at least), feel sympathy for the real-life Macy's attempt to escape his sorrows by usurping his fictional creation's exciting life. 6/10 The End Of The Whole Mess-- Uh, this title is how I felt about this episode when it was over. After twenty minutes, I was ready to scream at the TV--OK, we get it already, the younger brother is a Mega Mensa Genius Prodigy Extraordinaire! We know from Ron Livingston talking to the camera ("time is running out for me"--not fast enough, I thought) that the young whiz kid is going to discover something really bad for humanity--we know this because he's already built an airplane but almost died because he couldn't steer it out of the path of a tree; and, he blew up his chemistry lab while teaching himself chemistry (to think the end of the world could have been prevented if only this kid had some more parental supervision). So much time was wasted on establishing the uber-genius of Henry Thomas, when we finally get to the resolution of his discovery--the end of the world through unintended idiocy--how much do we get to see of the world "ending?"--a cheap video shot of a reporter starting to forget what she's reporting on, and brief radio broadcasts announcing the day of judgement is at hand. Oh, and the brother's parents drooling and singing old songs. My point is, if your story is really about the "end of the whole mess (world)", I wanna see the "mess" as it goes up in flames and crashes and burns. Talk about ending with a whimper, indeed. 2/10 Crouch End-- This episode just ticked me off totally. I could have lived with the taking-forever exposition of the happy couple arriving at their hotel, playing slap-and-tickle, having lunch, and getting a taxi (that was half the episode right there), if once they finally crossed-over into Crouch End the episode delivered the chills, but it failed miserabley. Not only wasn't it scary, it was practically laughable. Ooh, look--a kitty...wait, it turns...oh my god! Look at it's scary eye! Uh-huh. They could have gone a long way towards filming the Crouch End sequence at night instead of in daylight, too. Things you might unintentionally find funny can become scarier when you see them in the night shadows. But I guess the budget wasn't high enough to shoot at night on the fake London sets they slapped together for this one. On the page, this is a very scary story about tourists wandering into places they shouldn't and the terrible things that might lurk just around a corner there. The only terror in this adaptation was the directing and acting--those were truly horrifying. 1/10 Overall Series Average (so far): 4/10
| 0
|
train_21399
|
Where is it written that sequels must suck? Scream 2 didn't! Others didn't! But this one sure did... problems include horrible actors (only Christopher Walken could act in the entire film), bad writing (you will never understand what's going on and I even have done research on the idea of Nephilim before), and just horrible choices for casting. Eric Roberts makes the stupidest Archangel Michael that I have ever seen in my life!Avoid it like the plague unless you are desperate to see Christopher Walken. In that case just fast-forward to the parts where he is in the film, and avoid the others.Yech!!!
| 0
|
train_1289
|
First of all the movie, is an ingenious work of art(movie). The plot was filled with surprises, a little kid pretends to be a grown up inherits one million dollars and how he spends it. I mean how whacked out is this. Walt Disney really outdid themselves this time. The comedy is most of the times expected but the other times unexpected. I mean was this movie OK or was this movie OK. It also teaches a lot about wise youths and I this kid is really wise and a bit time smart pants. But also it sucks. How the heck could a guy like that kid get a hot police babe and his dad let him go free. That's like let a killer get bailed free for ten years. If I were to do that I'd get beaten with a 'suble jack'(a huge stick that stings when used to bench your butts really hard). That kid is really lucky. Back to the story. The movie makers really knew what they were doing when they made this movie but still it's not perfect. The acting was good and bad. The kid and woman had no chemistry neither did the father but the bros were excellent'. The special effects on the other hand was lame. Plus this movie isn't based on reality. I hated and loved it at the same time.
| 1
|
train_12461
|
A clever script from the late SEBASTIAN JAPRISOT and smart performances from the two male leads - ALAIN DELON and CHARLES BRONSON (or should it be the other way around) result in an engaging and entertaining thriller.Add to the above the competent direction from veteran JEAN HERMAN and a sparse but effective score by FRANCOIS DE ROUBAIX, it becomes easy why this film has an odd timeless quality.This is a buddy buddy or bonding story with two loners, both disillusioned and world weary, returning, presumably from Algiers. Like the other colonial powers of this time (post WW II leading into the 60s), France had struggled to keep up appearances overseas. Losing Algiers was a bitter blow.ADIEU L'AMI (the original title) chronicles the actions of our two (anti) heroes as they struggle to make a go of it, after their discharge.One thing happens after another, and the viewer really has to pay attention, because JAPRISOT is lean and economical with his script: if it is there, then there must be a reason.Suffice to say, these two men battle it out, physically and psychologically, one long weekend. Their motivation is quite different, their goals are different - their survival depends entirely on each other. That ALAIN DELON and CHARLES BRONSON are outwardly so different - the former, arguably a pretty boy, and the latter an ugly thug, adds to the chemistry.That quest makes for a great story, which in turn, makes for a great film.Lest I forget there are women in this film, and true to the Japrisot method, they too are memorable, though not nearly as fleshed out; to say much more would be to spoil one's delight in discovering their true nature.FAREWELL, FRIEND HAS BEEN RELEASED IN THE UK; AN ANAMORPHIC IMAGE, 16.9 ENHANCED; IN English ONLY (not even subtitles for the hard of hearing); A RUNNING TIME OF 110 MINUTES; MONO SOUNDTRACK but the DE ROUBAIX music has lots of punch! Highly recommended.
| 1
|
train_6418
|
I loved this movie. It is a definite inspirational movie. It fills you with pride. This movie is worth the rental or worth buying. It should be in everyones home. Best movie I have seen in a long time. It will make you mad because everyone is so mean to Carl Brashear, but in the end it gets better. It is a story of romance, drama, action, and plenty of funny lines to keep you tuned in. I love a lot of the quotes. I use them all the time. They help keep me on task of what I want to do. It shows that anyone can achieve their dreams, all they have to do is work for it. It is a long movie, but every time I watch it, I never notice that it is as long as it is. I get so engrossed in it, that it goes so quick. I love this movie. I watch it whenever I can.
| 1
|
train_16989
|
`The Matrix' was an exciting summer blockbuster that was visually fantastic but also curiously thought provoking in its `Twilight Zone'-ish manner. The general rule applies here- and this sequel doesn't match up to its predecessor. Worse than that, it doesn't even compare with it.`Reloaded' explodes onto the screen in the most un-professional fashion. In the opening few seconds the first impression is a generally good one as Trinity is shot in a dream. Immediately after that, the film nose-dives. After a disastrous first 45 minutes, it gradually gains momentum when they enter the Matrix and the Agent Smith battle takes place. But it loses itself all speed when it reaches the 14-minute car chase sequence and gets even worse at the big groan-worthy twist at the end. Worst of all is the overlong `Zion Rave' scene. Not only does it have absolutely nothing to do with the plot, but it's also a pathetic excuse for porn and depressive dance music.The bullet-time aspect of `The Matrix' was a good addition, but in `'Reloaded' they overuse to make it seem boring. In the first one there were interesting plot turns, but here it is too linear to be remotely interesting. The movie is basically, just a series of stylish diversions that prevent us from realising just how empty it really is. It works on the incorrect principle that bigger is better. It appears that `The Matrix' franchise has quickly descended into the special effects drenched misfire that other franchises such as the `Star Wars' saga have.The acting standard is poor for the most part. The best character of course goes to Hugo Weaving's `Agent Smith'- the only one to be slightly interesting. Keanu Reeves is the definitive Neo, but in all the special effects, there is little room to make much of an impact. Academy Award Nominee Laurence Fishburne is reduced to a monotonous mentor with poor dialogue. Carrie Ann Moss' part as the action chick could have been done much better by any other actress. A poor, thrown-together movie, `The Matrix Reloaded' is a disappointment. Those who didn't like the first one are unlikely to flock to it. This one's for die-hard fans only. Even in the movie's own sub-genre of special effect bonanzas (Minority Report, The Matrix etc.) this is still rather poor. My IMDb rating: 4.5/10.
| 0
|
train_12410
|
This is an excellent example of what can be done on a small budget movie. The acting is excellent considering the script & the whole atmosphere of the film is very foreboding. The gore is well done and used sparingly (look out for the excellent barbed-wire death) & the action is punchy when used. It's true that there are dodgy lines in the script at times, but compared to other movies on the same (or bigger!) budget, it's hardly noticeable at all. Overall, this is recommended. Trust me, it's better than it appears! 8/10
| 1
|
train_6822
|
"Opening Night" released in 1977, tries to be an ambitious production. It succeeds only in the truly stunning performance of Gena Rowlands. Her character of theatre actress Myrtle is not necessarily someone we would love in real life. She is self-absorbed, often obnoxious, and makes life miserable for those around her - in other words, not unlike some actresses! Myrtle is also a woman on the edge of collapse - we are not quite sure if the demons she is fighting are real or imagined, although we are let in on the secret early. Rowlands is obviously well directed with love by her gifted husband, actor/director John Cassavettes, who has a role in the film as well. This film is not without flaws - it is overly long, and the last part of the film where Myrtle goes on stage while very drunk seems almost cruel. The "improvising" in some of the dialogue - at least while on stage - goes on way too long. Some of the supporting characters give good performances, especially from Ben Gazarra, playing Myrtle's sleazy producer. Joan Blondell's character is never fully developed, and I never could figure out why she was in the film, except to placate Myrtle. See this film for Rowlands alone - she is fascinating throughout - and it is tough to take your eyes off her, although you will want to at times.
| 1
|
train_14185
|
All the kids aged from 14-16 want to see this movie (although you are only allowed at 18). They have heard it is a very scary movie and they feel so cool when they watched it. I feel very sad kids can't see what a good movie is, and what a bad movie is. This was one of the worst movies i saw in months. Every scene you see in this movie is a copy from another movie. And the end? It's an open ending... why? Because it is impossible to come up with a decent en for such a stupid story. This movie is just made to make you scared, and if you are a bit smart and know some about music, you exactly know when you'll be scared. When the movie was finished and i turned to my friend and told (a bit to loud) him that this was a total waste of money, some stupid kid looked strange at me. These day i could make an Oscar with a home-video of my goldfish, if only i use the right marketing.
| 0
|
train_13636
|
Every movie from the thirties is dated, but if you were to watch only John Ford movies it would seem more dated than if you watched others. i.e. Grand Hotel is comparatively modern melodrama. With Ford, there's always the hard-sell of someone's nobility (Abe, The Joads). Always the over-emphasis of some heavy's badness. Always the poorly crafted, awkward and obvious scripts. This is no exception. It's just a rather belabored device to deliver sentiment. And sentiment is all this has going for it.What Ford does here doesn't make me appreciative of Lincoln, it just makes me wonder how the States were ever settled by the population of complete morons depicted here. Ford went on to make decent movies. This is too dated to be anything but bad. It feels entirely false. Henry Fonda with a fake nose is bizarre. And no one from Illinois would pronounce the trailing 'S,' or say "Shonuff!"
| 0
|
train_7067
|
Although she is little known today, Deanna Durbin was one of the most popular stars of the 1930s, a pretty teenager with a perky personality and a much-admired operatic singing voice. This 1937 was her first major film, and it proved a box-office bonanza for beleaguered Universal Studios.THREE SMART GIRLS concerns three daughters of a divorced couple who rush to their long-unseen father when their still-faithful mother reveals he may soon remarry--with the firm intention of undermining his gold-digger girlfriend and returning him to their mother. Although the story is slight, the script is witty and the expert cast plays it with a neat screwball touch. Durbin has a pleasing voice and appealing personality, and such enjoyable character actors as Charles Winninger, Alice Brady, Lucile Watson, and Mischa Auer round out the cast. A an ultra-light amusement for fans of 1930s film.Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer
| 1
|
train_3790
|
I tuned into this by accident on the independent film channel and was riveted. I'm a professional actor and I was flabbergasted by the performances. They felt totally improvisatory, absolutely without affectation. I could not tell if it was scripted or how it was shot and waited until the very end to see credits and then spent a half an hour on the IMDb to find this film. Do not miss it. I see that the writer-director also did a very fine film called Everyday People which I enjoyed a lot. The shame of the film business is that projects this excellent do not get the distribution and advertising that they deserve and live under the radar. This film deserves to be flown high and proudly. I urge people to look it up and watch it.
| 1
|
train_1285
|
Frustrated middle-aged Deputy District Attorney George Maxwell (a fine performance by George E. Carey, who also produced this picture) can't stand his naggy, frigid wife Edith (a perfectly bitchy Anne Bellamy) anymore. Worse yet, poor George is further saddled with a newborn baby sun and a lascivious lesbian teenage daughter (dishy brunette Sheri Jackson). George has an adulterous fling with lovely, enticing and free-spirited swinging hippie babysitter Candy Wilson (delightfully played with sexy aplomb by yummy blonde knockout Patricia Wymer). Complications ensue when George finds himself being blackmailed by the bitter Julia Freeman (a nicely venomous turn by Kathy Williams), who wants George to spring her psychotic biker boyfriend Laurence Mackey (a frightening Robert Tessier, who sports a head full of hair here) from jail. Director Tom Laughlin (yep, the same dude who portrayed Billy Jack!) and screenwriter James McLarty cram the splendidly seamy story with a winning and highly entertaining surplus of delicious female nudity, sizzling soft-core sex, and raw violence. Moreover, they accurately peg the whole wild'n'easy uninhibited sensibility of the 60's youth culture and relate the plot in a tight 75 minute running time, thus ensuring that this movie doesn't overstay its welcome. One definite highlight occurs when Candy invites her groovy friends over the Maxwells house for an impromptu basement bash complete with pot smoking, wailing rock music, and, of course, hot naked dancing chicks. Robert O. Ragland's funky score hits the gnarly spot. Stanton Fox's stark black and white cinematography adds an extra gritty edge to the deliriously sleazy goings-on. Best of all, this flick rates as a marvelous showcase for the utterly charming and fresh-faced pixie Patricia Wymer, who positively lights up the screen with her sweet, bubbly personality and captivating beauty. A total trashy treat.
| 1
|
train_24574
|
Ridiculous horror film about a wealthy man (John Carradine) dying and leaving everything to his four children, and his servants to be divided up equally. One condition--they must spend one week in his estate to get the money. And if any of them die, the others get more. Guess what happens next.... I saw a brand new print of this film on cable. The colors were bright and vivid and the house itself looks beautiful. That's about all the good things I can say about it.Let's list just some of the problems this film has: the killer is screamingly obvious; the servants are called Igor and Elga--come on!; some of the sound recording was so bad I couldn't make out the dialogue (no great loss I'm sure); the gore was sparse and very poorly done; the other murders were simply boring, stupid or impossible and this movie contains some truly abominable acting--so bad you just stare at the screen in disbelief. Even pro Jeff Morrow was terrible! The only fairly good acting was from trouper Faith Domergue (who deserved better than this) and John Carradine (who looks painfully old and frail here). I do have to admit though--the closing line in this movie is a gem!Why this was renamed "Legacy of Blood" is beyond me--there's another 1978 horror film with that name!Whatever its name is, it's a bad movie. To be avoided at all costs.
| 0
|
train_21562
|
This movie was different in that it didn't show the typical gay stereotypes that I'm used to seeing. But that doesn't change the fact that it totally lacks a storyline. I'm sure that there are many gay men who are just happy to see themselves depicted on screen, since Black gay characters are seldom seen, and when they are the characters are usually not fully developed. But, how hard would it have been for the writer to actually script a story with a beginning, middle and end. Or how about a story that was focused. There really doesn't seem to be a point to this film, and even though it is a low budget film, that is still no excuse for the lack of story or plot.
| 0
|
train_7887
|
If your a hard core Freddy fan then you might not like it. This seems to be a spoof of the nightmare series. Not much to see here. The only reason it holds it self up is the back story on Freddy.The one thing that is always great in Nightmare movies are the death scenes. But the death scenes were very crappy in this. The visual effects were great and the acting was OK but the back story was excellent. Basically Freddy's story comes full circle in this.I have read bad reviews for this but i actually enjoyed this despite its many flaws: 1. A Nightmare on Elm Street. (8/10) 2. Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare. (7/10) 3. A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master. (7/10) 4. A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: The Dream Warriors. (7/10) 5. A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child. (6/10) 6. A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge. (3/10) I recommend it if you enjoy the series. This is were Freddy is fully explained but thats all there is. Next on my list Wes Cravens New Nightmare.(7/10)
| 1
|
train_18024
|
I disliked this movie for numerous reasons. Within the first ten minutes of the film, I grew extremely disappointed and came to the conclusion that if this movie was going to salvage itself, for me at least, that it was going to have to pull itself out of the enormous hole it had dug. Unfortunately, that did not occur. The two draws of the movie for me were to see Jane Fonda and Felicity Huffman. I don't know enough about Lindsey Lohan's work to have been interested in what she would bring to the film. Afterward, I just felt disappointed in and for all three of them even though there were "moments" in each of their performances. I imagine that for each of them to find their "moments" was a very difficult task given the fact that there was an amazing lack of character development and uninspired dialog. Although the plot is an interesting one, the movie on the whole is so poorly written, directed and edited that anybody's performance as an actor would suffer and be tainted by it. The disrespectful way in which it dealt with sexual abuse and the trite and insulting viewpoint of small-town America, I think, were the two main reasons why this film failed in hitting it's mark. As one reviewer has noted and I would agree, the movie is almost impossible to market given it's finished form. I suspect that, or at least hope that (for the actor's sakes anyway) there are some real gems on the cutting room floor. Sad for us but if that's true then the actors can take solace in that and feel somewhat good about lending their talents and time to such a flop. Oh yeah and another thing...I wished for just once I could go see an American movie which included the sadly disappearing but wonderfully bucolic settings such as the one in this film where the main characters weren't absentmindedly and/or disrespectfully littering the country side with pop cans, smashed CDs and, other such trash!
| 0
|
train_1794
|
Halfway through Lajos Koltai's "Evening," a woman on her deathbed asks a figure appearing in her hallucination: "Can you tell me where my life went?" The line could be embarrassingly theatrical, but the woman speaking it is Vanessa Redgrave, delivering it with utter simplicity, and the question tears your heart out.Time and again, the film based on Susan Minot's novel skirts sentimentality and ordinariness, it holds attention, offers admirable performances, and engenders emotional involvement as few recent movies have. With only six months of the year gone, there are now two memorable, meaningful, worthwhile films in theaters, the other, of course, being Sara Polley's "Away from Her." Hollywood might have turned "Evening" into a slick celebrity vehicle with its two pairs of real-life mothers and daughters - Vanessa Redgrave and Natasha Richardson, and Meryl Streep and Mamie Gummer. Richardson is Redgrave's daughter in the film (with a sister played by Tony Collette), and Gummer plays Streep's younger self, while Redgrave's youthful incarnation is Claire Danes.Add Glenn Close, Eileen Atkins, Hugh Dancy, Patrick Wilson, and a large cast - yes, it could have turned into a multiple star platform. Instead, Koltai - the brilliant Hungarian cinematographer of "Mephisto," and director of "Fateless" - created a subtle ensemble work with a "Continental feel," the story taking place in a high-society Newport environment, in the days leading up to a wedding that is fraught with trouble.Missed connections, wrong choices, and dutiful compliance with social and family pressures present quite a soap opera, but the quality of the writing, Koltai's direction, and selfless acting raise "Evening" way above that level, into the the rarified air of English, French (and a few American) family sagas from a century before its contemporary setting.Complex relationships between mothers and daughters, between friends and lovers, with the addition of a difficult triangle all come across clearly, understandably, captivatingly. Individual tunes are woven into a symphony.And yet, with the all the foregoing emphasis on ensemble and selfless performances, the stars of "Evening" still shine through, Redgrave, Richardson, Gummer (an exciting new discovery, looking vaguely like her mother, but a very different actress), Danes carrying most of the load - until Streep shows up in the final moments and, of course, steals the show. Dancy and Wilson are well worth the price of admission too.As with "Away from Her," "Evening" stays with you at length, inviting a re-thinking its story and characters, and re-experiencing the emotions it raises. At two hours, the film runs a bit long, but the way it stays with you thereafter is welcome among the many movies that go cold long before your popcorn.
| 1
|
train_6225
|
This was the second of three films that Irving Berlin wrote for the Astaire-Rogers franchise and it has by far the largest score and is somewhat unusual in that two of the numbers are performed by Harriet Hilliard leaving the rest to be divvied and/or shared between the principals. As usual the storyline needn't detain us though for the record it was based on a play, Shore Leave, that also served as the basis for a Broadway Musical, Hit The Deck. Anyone who actually saw Shore Leave in the theatre may have been momentarily bemused inasmuch as the roles played by Fred and Ginger were created for the movie but what matters, as always, is the music, lyrics and hoofing and this is all out of the right bottle. It's a departure from the other titles in the franchise in that 1) we get to see Astaire play the piano - in real life he was an accomplished pianist and composed several songs, one of which, I'm Building Up To An Awful Let-Down, had a lyric by Johnny Mercer and spent a couple of weeks in the charts - and it is the only one of the series in which he played a serviceman, albeit an ex-hoofer who enlisted in the navy after being dumped by dancing partner Ginger before the story starts. He gets to perform a little-known but excellent Berlin number, I'd Rather Lead A Band as well as duetting on I'm Putting All My Eggs In One Basket but the ultimate number is the prophetic - in 1936 rumbles of World War II were already being felt - Let's Face The Music And Dance, one of the most potent ballads ever performed by the team. So what if Randolph Scott is a little wooden and fish-out-of-water without either a horse or a six-gun within easy reach and Harriet Hilliard doesn't exactly set the screen on fire; we came to see Fred and Ginger and the only question is, do they deliver. Answer: In spades.
| 1
|
train_1264
|
To fight against the death penalty is a just cause. Everyone who is sane in Europe would think so. In the USA everything is different. The film seems to demonstrate in a first stage that justice can be won against the racist bigot death penalty craving American justice. A young man is freed from death row thanks to a law professor who went back to defense counseling for this particular case. But the film has a sequel. Justice in the USA is entirely governed by the aim of vengeance. Miscarriage of justice is just the same governed by vengeance. One person in the local Public Attorney Offfice has a young man prosecuted on false charges. This Public Attorney's officer drops the charges after a while and the young man walks out free. But he loses his college scholarship and he is castrated by some vengeful people for whom there is never any smoke without a fire. He hides his shame and swears to get his vengeance. But he also needs to satisfy his sexual needs which are more mental than hormonal for sure but even stronger because mental and no longer hormonal and he can only do that with little girls. He apparently teams with another serial killer who is after the same kind of preys. One day the local cops follow their intuition, guided by some vague circumstantial elements in the assassination of a young girl, and they arrest the young chap we are speaking of. They beat him up and interrogate him for 22 hours with nothing but blows and blows and telephone books and guns and Russian roulette. He confesses. Sent to death row, he asks his grandmother to go get the law professor in Massachusetts who is the husband of the Local Public Attorney's representative that had him falsely prosecuted some years ago and the vengeance is on the rails. It will fail but it shows that as soon as one in the line of justice, police work and other security forces steps off the line of absolute legality, some unjust act is done that can ruin even the best accusation case and that can nourish the worst deepest imaginable thirst for vengeance. To charge someone on circumstantial elements is just as bad as to let circumstantial elements ruin the work of the police or of justice. The best intentions on the police side are ruined by some personal involvement and vengeful intention, just as much as the life of a person can be jeopardized by circumstantial elements inflated to the size of evidence, which in its turn will jeopardize the whole case by being just circumstantial, hence easily discardable, with a good lawyer. The film then is a deep reflection on the necessity to respect standards and regulations all along the police and justice line if we don't want to make a mistake, which in its turn of course does not justify the death penalty since anyway it goes against the deepest belief Americans are supposed to have: "We hold these truths to be self-evident , that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." (Declaration of Independence) Life is an unalienable Right that was given to man by his Creator, which means no one but the one who gave it can take it away. Only God can take the life of a person away. The death penalty is the arrogant appropriation of a power that we do not have. Even if we do not evoke God, we cannot justify the death penalty except as an act of vengeance, and here the film shows vengeance is the worst possible motivation in the rendition of justice and in the establishment of public peace. If vengeance is pushed aside there is no other justification for this death penalty. And there can always be a mistake in that pursuit not of Happiness but of vengeance.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID
| 1
|
train_11779
|
Having read Diamond's book, I was slightly disappointed in the series, but all in all, it is quite informative. Reading the other comments, it is comforting to know that the 'culture warriors' are hard at work, seeing 'attacks' on 'Western Civilization' under every rug.Is Diamond a little preachy ? Sure. Like a lot of academics, he sees his theory as the most important thing ever. He uses the phrase 'guns, germs, and steel' at seemingly every opportunity during the series. We get it, after about the first 10 minutes.Is Diamond a little simplistic (in the series) ? Sure. The part about the Spaniards in South America is particularly amusing, condensing some very long, complicated history down to 'smallpox, swords, and horses', wrapping up the whole conquest of South America in about 15 minutes. But the point remains valid - these things did in fact contribute (but not totally define) the reasons for the Spaniard's success against the established cultures.Is he preaching *against* Western Civilization in any way ? Nope. Not a word. Not to my ear. All he says is that luck played a large part in determining which cultures advanced more quickly, *not* that luck is the only reason.In the end, if you're looking for something that validates your own sense of superiority, then this series is not for you. But if you are interested in all of the factors than influence how societies succeed or fail, this series presents a useful interpretation of the historical evidence.
| 1
|
train_9354
|
As someone who has never condescended Adam Sandler in terms of talent, as is done to him and many comic actors like him, I walked in to Reign Over Me expecting a great film, not simply because of his presence in the movie but because I thought that it looked very good overall. Even someone who already thought that Sandler could deliver an effective dramatic performance is writing here that I was surprised at how fantastic he is in it. He will make you weep, especially in his purposefully sudden and unexpected monologue. What's amazing about his role is that it's a character it's hard to say we've seen before. We've seen many emotionally scarred characters, many mentally retarded people, many loners, many passionate self-centered artists, but Sandler's Charlie Fineman is none of these. He may have a taste of each of them in some ways, but his character is truly unpredictable and completely individual. It's a joy for the audience to be drawn in emotionally by him and be tugged every which way by someone whose problems, mindset, and provocations are completely different from most characters like him.Don Cheadle delivers an interesting performance on a completely different level. He is every man. He is the most normal possible person in the world, so much so that you will hardly find many characters like his either, or at least any that are played the way he plays Alan Johnson, whose name is even found on the assembly line. Cheadle is brilliant in that he is funny, jolting, smart, and stupid the way so many normal people are.The rest of the cast is populated by actors and actresses who've hardly done anything in awhile in smaller but quite colorful roles. Jada Pinkett-Smith is the overly refined upper middle class wife, Donald Sutherland is the impatient but surprising judge, Robert Klein is Sandler's desensitized father-in-law.Mike Binder's script is quite brilliant because it says something quite profound about the wonders of communication in all of its guises. It's much more subtle than, say, Babel, and has a much more close-to-home ideal.The camera is only interested in the reality of its images as opposed to the mere style. This film struck me as sort of a sendback to the kitchen-sink style of the 1970s. Cinematography was grainy and unfastened, but that was its charm. It wasn't about attracting us to the camera itself and the gloss that would've diluted its stories with such.The music, which plays a major role in the film, and its title, is very powerful. Near the beginning, you feel like you're in for another About Schmidt or Little Miss Sunshine sort of soundtrack, but you soon realize you're in for more than that. In fact, the film is packed with lots of music that stimulates a lot of the most emotional scenes.Reign Over Me is a major statement not only for society but also for film itself. It goes to show that even the director of Blankman is capable of wonders.
| 1
|
train_1209
|
In an era of such awful cartoons, I am rather in shock to see a movie with such good morals make it to the IMDB Bottom List for Animated movies.This movie does contradict the first. I won't deny that. However, when I was in the target age group for this movie, I didn't even notice, nor would it have mattered if I did. The people who made it may have used "New Generation" to note that this is another way the Care Bear Family could have began. Perhaps we are meant to decide for ourselves how the Care Bear family truly began.This was my favorite movie at age 3-6, and it did not scare me or confuse me at all.
| 1
|
train_15637
|
I, like many people, saw this film in the theatre when it first came out in '97. It was a below average film at best, defiantly not the "masterpiece" that all these "Titanic" fanboys like to make it out as. First off, DiCaprio is a terrible actor no matter which way you look at it. People just like him because of his looks. His acting "skills" essentially consist of saying a lot of cheesy lines and trying to act sexy. Second, the film itself had a rather boring and simple plot: girl falls in love with guy, ship they're on sinks, lots of crappy love scenes thereafter. Anyone with an IQ above 50 will realize this isn't ingenious in any way whatsoever. Nor is it original. Plus the director felt the need to drag it out for 3+ hours. I could compress it into a 1 hour block without losing any of the plot. In conclusion, "Titanic" is the most overrated movie to date. Why it got so much attention and money is beyond me.
| 0
|
train_10498
|
It's a bit easy. That's about it.The graphics are clean and realistic, except for the fact that some of the fences are 2d, but that's forgiveable. The rest of the graphics are cleaner than GoldenEye and many other N64 games. The sounds are magnificant. Everything from the speaking to the SFX are pleasant and realistic.The camera angle is a bit frustrating at times, but it's the same for every platform game, like Banjo-Kazooie and Donkey Kong 64.I got this game as a Christmas present in 1997, and since then, I have dutifully gotten 120 stars over 10 times.
| 1
|
train_17272
|
Before watching this film, I could already tell it was a complete copy of Saw (complete with the shack-like place they were in and the black guy wanting someone to break his hand to get out of the cuffs). MJH's name on a movie would typically turn me away (ugh, can we say GROSS?!), but I still wanted to give it a try.Starting out, I was a bit interested. The acting is absolutely horrible and I found myself laughing at almost each reaction from the characters (especially the man that played "Sulley"). MJH was even worst, but I continued to watch.However, the ending was the biggest joke of them all! I seriously sat in shock thinking "THAT was the ending?! Is this a comedy?!".I thought this pile of crap was funnier than the "Scary Movie" spoofs and that is REALLY saying something!
| 0
|
train_20727
|
I'll keep this fast and sweet. Five girls on their way home from a football game decide to take a 'short cut' that leads them down a deserted forest-ridden road. Of course nothing but good things happen to them, and they safely arrive at their destination.Alright, they don't. Soon they're hunted down by a deranged chick who has some severe mental issues, and what ensues is 90 minutes of sheer boredom.I hope to never see any of these actors in any movie ever again. Their screaming, screeching voices gave me a headache, and the script was so poorly written that it included a lot of repeat phrases and nonsensical hysterical screaming. All in all, one of the worst cheap horror flicks I've ever seen...and I've seen a lot.
| 0
|
train_7170
|
HOLES is not your average Disney stuff- it's very, very fun, even for adults who usually cringe at the cutesy, focus-group designed "family entertainment" that Uncle Walt's studio passes off as live-action. Perhaps the secret of this film's success is in its faithfulness to the original book, which is a little bit darker than your average kid stuff. The action begins when Stanley Yelnats is sent to a boys' prison camp, where all the inmates are forced to dig holes under the desert sun as a form of rehibilitation. But as the story progresses, Stanley's tale becomes interwoven with that of a legendary treasure, and this adventure becomes ten times more fun than any Disney movie about an all-boy prison camp has any right to be. Jon Voight is especially nasty and colorful, and Sigourney Weaver is beautiful, as always.
| 1
|
train_13674
|
Eric Rohmer's 'The Lady and the Duke' is based on the journals of an English aristocrat who lived through the French revolution. But it's a stilted affair, with its strange, painted backdrops and mannered conversational tone. Most notably, this portrait of age of terror takes place almost entirely at one remove from the real action; one sees very little of ordinary people in this movie, and little of the chaos, poverty and terror that unfolded away from the drawing rooms of the persecuted, but spoilt, aristocratic classes. The result is frequently dull, and ultimately unenlightening about the forces that sometimes drive societies to the brink of destruction; it's a disappointing film from an acclaimed director.
| 0
|
train_18907
|
I watched this film for 45 minutes and counted 9 mullets. That's a mullet every 5 minutes. Seriously though, this film is living proof that formula works. If it ain't broke, it don't need fixin. A streetwise-yet-vulnerable heroine, a hardened ex-cop martial arts master with a heart of gold and a serial killer with 'issues'. Pure magic.
| 0
|
train_3272
|
Coming from the same director who'd done "Candyman" and "Immortal Beloved", I'm not surprised it's a good film. Ironically, "Papierhaus" is a movie I'd never heard of until now, yet it must be one of the best movies of the late 80s - partly because that is hands down the worst movie period in recent decades. (Not talking about Iranian or Swedish "cinema" here...) The acting is not brilliant, but merely solid - unlike what some people here claim (they must have dreamt this "wondrous acting", much like Anna). The story is an interesting fantasy that doesn't end in a clever way that ties all the loose ends together neatly. These unanswered questions are probably left there on purpose, leaving it up to the individual's interpretation, and there's nothing wrong with that with a theme such as this. "Pepperhaus" is a somewhat unusual mix of kids' film and horror, with effective use of sounds and music. I like the fact that the central character is not your typical movie-cliché ultra-shy-but-secretly-brilliant social-outcast girl, but a regular, normal kid; very refreshing. I am sick and tired of writers projecting their own misfit-like childhoods into their books and onto the screens, as if anyone cares anymore to watch or read about yet another miserly, lonely childhood, as if that's all there is or as if that kind of character background holds a monopoly on good potential. The scene with Anna and the boy "snogging" (for quite a stretch) was a bit much - evoking feelings of both vague disgust and amusement - considering that she was supposed to be only 11, but predictably it turned out that Burke was 13 or 14 when this was filmed. I have no idea why they didn't upgrade the character's age or get a younger actress. It was quite obvious that Burke isn't that young. Why directors always cast kids older than what they play, hence dilute the realism, I'll never know.
| 1
|
train_4716
|
This movie is just too funny, a totally non-PC gangster romp. If Mel Brooks made a picture about the Mob in the 30's, it would probably look like this. Too many great one-liners to to remember, and while its not for everyone, anyone who DOESNT laugh a whole bunch of times doesnt have a pulse. So, put it on and LAUGH you Iceholes!!!
| 1
|
train_14780
|
It's the nature of businesses to try to capitalize on others' success. Here we have a movie taking elements from the earlier 'Dracula' (1931) and 'Frankenstein' (1931) -- in a Germanic town the village leaders believe that vampires (in the shape of bats) have been the cause of recent deaths of bloodless victims. Even though shot at Universal (and at the Bronson caves!) it's a Poverty Row feature; it's not fair to compare it with those earlier, more expensively made and superior films.From the familiar and exciting, chilling music of the main titles (which must have been by Mischa Bakalienikoff), through the talky but well done opening sequence, we anticipate the arrival of Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray and Dwight Frye to give us a good 30s mystery film. Unfortunately, it doesn't happen. That's the disappointment.We get little more than the formulaic elements of such films but with slow pacing, low budget, not enough of Dwight Frye, the overdone presence of Maude Eburne (Aunt Gussie), and the premise for Lionel Atwill (Dr. von Niemann) to require human blood or how he exhibits mind control over his servant Emil (Robert Frazier) never made very clear.Do not watch the technicolor 'Dr. X' (1932) -- which also stars Lionel Atwill and Fay Wray but as father and daughter -- before watching this the way I did; it's an Oscar winner by comparison. So watch this one first. Structurally, 'The Vampire Bat' still isn't that good. It plods along with too much talking or unnecessary comic relief, without focusing strongly on the vampiric villainy.Besides 'Dr. X' and 'Mystery of the Wax Museum' (both 1932 and co starring Fay Wray), Lionel Atwill's most famous appearances are as the one armed gendarme in 'Son of Frankenstein' (1939) and as Moriarity in 'Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon' (1943). Dwight Frye steals all his manic scenes in 'Dracula' (1931). As the 'young lovers,' Melvin Douglas and Fay Wray have a nice kissing scene, but that's about it. He can be seen in 'The Old Dark House' (1932), and Fay gets dragged around by Joel McCrea in 'The Most Dangerous Game' (1930). Then there's her 1933 classic 'screamer.' Too bad more time, money and rewrites weren't available for this film to better showcase the talents and chemistry of Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray and Dwight Frye. Sadly, then, this drearily disappointing film only gets a 4.
| 0
|
train_10989
|
"Cypher" is a cleverly conceived story about industrial espionage set in America in the not too distant future. While thematically not complex, this film does offer many different perspectives about personal loyalty, ruthlessness, and corporate conspiracy. To a certain extent this film also attempts to represent modern corporate groups and companies as being indifferent to the risks their contract employees take on their behalf.The film starts off with a somewhat mediocre salary man, Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam), who applies to the Digicorp group to work as an undercover operative. After an initial briefing with Digicorp's Security Chief, Sullivan is then given a new identity (Jack Thursby) and sent to a business conference with the task of recording the speeches given by various spokesmen concerning the marketing strategies of each of their respective companies. Upon successfully completing his first assignment, Sullivan/Thursby is sent on further missions to obtain the same type of information previously gathered. However, on one of his "business trips" he inadvertently runs into a woman named Rita Foster, (Liu) whom he had met on his previous assignment, and from there things go extremely topsy-turvy. The implications of a diabolical conspiracy involving Digicorp's espionage program begin to emerge and Sullivan is forced to go deep cover at one of Digicorp's main competitors, thus becoming a double agent involved in an intense rivalry between the two companies.((SPOILERS END HERE))What I liked most about this film was the efficient use of lighting and shadows in a lot of the scenes. Vivid lighting was used in mainly domestic/household settings, while a lot of shadows and dark coloring were used for settings involving deception and cover-up. I was also very impressed with Jeremy Northam. Not too often have I seen him in the lead role, and the fact that he plays a disenchanted married man straight out of Wisconsin was brilliant. Personally, I think he's one of the many under used actors in the industry who hasn't been given more challenging roles. Lucy Liu was also incredible in her part and gave the movie its real cloak-and-dagger tone. Additionally, the rest of the supporting cast did a superb job, however, my only complaint was that some characters could have been explored more to make the plot and closure a little more complicated. For example, I would have loved to see what would have happened if Jack Thursby had developed a more intimate relationship with his second "wife." Overall, this is a cleverly developed cloak-and-dagger story that keeps you guessing to the very end about personal and professional loyalties and whether anyone in the entire film can be trusted. With a smart and stylish soundtrack and great camera work, this film provides a scary look at how corporations might operate in the near future. I'm surprised that I had never watched this "hidden gem" before. This is a brilliant, not-too-overly complicated spy thriller, and therefore I'm giving it a 9 out of 10.
| 1
|
train_23204
|
It's Die Hard meets Cliffhanger when a ski resort is besieged by terrorists and it's up to one cop, Jack (Crackerjack) to stop this.A B-action movie that borrows from other films and is quite good with pretty good action, a ridiculous plot (as always in these movies) and three fine stars. Thomas Ian Griffith as the cop and Nastasja Kinski and Christopher Plummer as terrorists. If you don't like stupid B-action movies this is not for you.
| 0
|
train_14588
|
What an awful show. Science Fiction fans seem to watch anything anymore regardless of quality. It shocks me that something exceptional like Firefly lasts one season, while garbage like the Battlestar Galactica remake spawns a spin off. This spin off is pitiful in every aspect of the show. The acting is juvenile and uninspired. The characters are cardboard clichés of everything that has ever been in a bad Sci-Fi series. The story is bad. The dialog is worse than a prime time soap opera. The direction is shoddy and the sets are awful. Caprica is a waste of film, a waste of time and a waste of effort. This is one spin off that should have never been made.
| 0
|
train_6991
|
This is an excellent movie. The cast is a great mix of characters and the story is decent. The movie is basically about a well-accomplished doctor stealing the bodies of dead brides and taking them to his home. Once the bodies are at his home, he removes stuff (i hate to use such a general term, but i forget what it was he removed) and puts it into his wife to retain her youth. Then a reporter, Patricia Hunter, investigates the situation and begins to find answers on why the brides were dying. She takes a trip to the doctors house and the interesting things begin to take place. Definitely watch this oldie, but goodie if you can.
| 1
|
train_5425
|
This- and not a certain slightly overrated Southern Soap Opera-was the greatest epic to come out of Hollywoods greatest year, 1939.I will not not restate the obvious-Cary Grant,Victor McLaglen( who WAS a Bengal Lancer), and Douglas Fairbanks Jr. give superb comic performances.However, I want to note two other, less understood elements of this masterpiece. The Magnificent final battle sequence, as the wonderful Sam Jaffe climbs laboriously up to the pinnacle of the temple to blow his bugle and warn the regiment, is simply grand. It never fails to enthrall me. Yet another underrated element in the film is Eduardo Ciannelli's performance as the Guru. This is no Fu Manchu caricature, but an well drawn, articulate, historically informed ( "Have you ever heard of Changruputra Maurya?He defeated the armies left in India by Alexander The Great")villain. Indeed, one can see parallels between this mystical, evil nationalist and a certain well known figure of the thirties( A German, not an Indian). Gunga Din, anti-Nazi tract? Not quite. But still, a tremendous, funny, moving epic.
| 1
|
train_10708
|
John (Ben Chaplin) is a lonely bank clerk who lives in a small town not far from London. Though the Internet, he contacts a Russian agency of brides. He selects Sophia (Nicole Kidman the guy could be lonely and shy, but certainly has a good taste, doesn't he?) and when they met each other, he realizes that she does not speak English. The communication between each other is basically limited by sex (again, imagine, what a terrible situation for the guy, just have some kinky sex with Nicole Kidman!). On her birthday, two Russian friends of her visit them. Then, lots of surprises will happen. I liked this movie: first, it is almost impossible to be 'labeled'. Is it a black comedy, an action, a thriller movie? I believe all the choices are correct. Nicole Kidman is gorgeous as usual, and I am very curious about her Russian: is she speaking Russian in a correct accent indeed, or just faking? Anyway, I found it an enjoyable movie. My vote is eight.Title (Brazil): "A Isca Perfeita" ("The Perfect Bait")
| 1
|
train_21529
|
This movie wastes virtually every actor's talents in what could best be charitably called a "potboiler".Despite it's action-packed 'Top Gun' opening it is all downhill from there with plenty of stereotypes and unlikely situations following each other until you try to choke yourself on your popcorn.There are so many dead-end story lines in this movie I was guessing at one point it was made by splicing together a discarded TV series.Quinn's Mexican drug-lord role is laughable and his 'associates' plucked right out of a 1970's Quinn-Martin cop show. Costner's character is wooden and gives us no reason to believe he actually fell in love with Mendez' wife. Nor are we convincingly led to believe the wife is aching for companionship and will jump the first hot body coming along.Definitely a 'B' movie at best and a huge waste of time for everyone involved.
| 0
|
train_5878
|
Garam Masala is one of the funniest film I've seen in ages. Akshay Kumar is excellent as the womaniser who has affairs with 3 girls and engaged at the same time. John Abraham is Amusing at times and this is one of his best works so far. Paresh Rawail is superb as usual in most of his films. The director Priyadarshan has delivered great Movies in the past. Hera Pheri, Hungama and Hulchul being some of the Best. Garam Masala is his funniest film he has made. The three newcomer actresses are average. Rimi sen doesn't get much scope in this movie. I was impressed to see how Priyadarshan made a movie with a simple storyline of a guy having a affair with 3 girls at the same time. All 3 girls have a day off in the same day and end up in the same house. Packed with loads of Laughs, this is one Non stop Entertainer.
| 1
|
train_18104
|
I've heard about this movie for many years, and finally got a chance to see it. A massive murdering of cheerleaders back in 1963 and 1969 eventually cause a cheerleading camp to close up. Fast forward to 1982, and Bambi, a former student, opens it back up with new recruits, among them Candy (Carol Kane), Glenn (Judge Reinhold), and Sandy (Debralee Scott). One by one, they are murdered by the killer, until only one remains. It is then when we find out who did it and why.Also in the movie are Tom Smothers doing a terrible accent as a Canadian Mountie, and Paul Reubens doing his Pee-Wee Herman schtick. The plot overall isn't very well developed, and quite lame, but some funny scenes do occur, namely the House of Bad Pies and the strip poker scene. The ending seems like it's thrown together, which is a shame.Overall, good for about ten or fifteen minutes total, the rest you can just fast forward through. Maybe catch it on TV, but it's not worth buying.
| 0
|
train_16310
|
When I was younger, I liked this show, but now...BLECCH!!! This show is sappy, badly written, and rarely funny. The three leads were all good actors and funny men (Saget's stand up was a lot better than the stuff this show came up with, as was Coulier a better stand up, and Stamos was a better than average actor). After a while, Stamos wanted off the show because it wanted to do more serious stuff (who could blame him?). The show eventually got cancelled when many of the actors demanded more money.Here are a few things that drive me crazy about the show:1. The catch phrases- How many times can one person put up with tiring catch phrases like with 'how rude', 'you got it dude', 'nerdbomber', 'cut it out' and 'have mercy' in a 24 hour time period? 2. Kimmy Gibler- the most annoying character ever written for television.3. The writing- stale and cliched as an oreo cookie. There is good cliched writing and bad cliched writing. Full House had bad cliched writing.4. Three men living together in San Francisco- Enough said.5. Unrealistic stuff- Too much to recall.6. Trendy kids- The girls had all the latest mall fashions and you can see posters of trendy recording artists they would be into.Now this show is on Nick @ Nite. I would hardly call it a classic. I have nothing bad to say about the people involved since I think many of them are talented in their own right. But this show was just so sugary sweet, I couldn't stand it after a while.
| 0
|
train_9810
|
Albuquerque is a film that has all the elements of a class A western, except one: the story, that really belongs to a class B or C. That was acceptable at the time the film was made, when people were so thrilled to see a western in color, but nowadays it just looks very primitive. Nonetheless for people who enjoy old westerns, it is entertaining, the original color and sound are very well kept on the DVD that recently came out. Gabby Hayes is a good sidekick, Lon Chaney is mean as always, and Randolph Scott a bit more cheerful than usual. In a film named Albuquerque you would expect to see something that would remind you of the city, but the town that is shown here could be just anywhere.
| 1
|
train_8045
|
I finally got myself set up on mail order DVD rental so I could find movies not available to me in the stores. I chose The Souler Opposite because I love Christopher Meloni, and also like small, often ignored films.This one is such a treat! Meloni has such charm in this part. It's easy to pigeon hole him is you only ever see him as his alter ego Elliot Stabler (LOSVU). In this film, Meloni is an out of step unattached mid-lifer who is hitting the skids in many ways, only to find a path to happiness in someone unexpected.The relationship drawn between Barry (Meloni) and Tim Busfield's character is realistic and not over done. I haven't seen Busfield since 30something, and he was fun to watch. But it was all Chris' film. I became such a fan girl all over again.It is a bit slow in the beginning, I will admit. I thought some of the "flashbacks" could have been edited down. But overall, this film will delight you - male or female - as it has an honest, refreshing view of relationships today.
| 1
|
train_17088
|
I created my own reality by walking out of the theater I was roped in by my girlfriend into going to this dreck with her mom. We (my g-friend and I) walked out about an hour into it. What a load of pseudo scientific new age jargon.Sub atomic particles are thoughts? By taping labels to bottles of water and blessing it by a Buddhist monk it grew little pretty crystals? A drop of 25% in the murder rate in DC happened when a bunch of folks meditated. Wow, what a rigorous scientific study. I'm sure that someone ate cheerios for four days straight during the same time. Should we conclude that eating cheerios caused a drop in the murder rate? Hogwash, hooey, bull pucky! BTW- It was funded by the Ramtha cult, the leader of which was one of the "experts" which were interview by the filmmakers. No ulterior motives here, right?
| 0
|
train_6238
|
Uncompromising look at a suburb in 21st century Vienna mixing the stories of six groups of characters by former documentary maker U.Seidl is a provocative, minimalistic and intense piece of observation cinema.After the world-wide spread of Big Brother reality shows, Hundstage takes modern voyeurism to an unsettling, profound level. Hard to like but unignorable piece of European art-cinema might seem cruel and seedy, yet manages to convey the nihilistic alienated feeling of modern society in a praiseworthy manner.A must for lovers of world cinema.
| 1
|
train_20745
|
I can't believe anyone liked this movie. I've seen a lot of low-budget indie films, but this one absolutely sucked. Low budget doesn't mean the movie has to be demented. Horror doesn't mean the movie has to be demented. There was nothing scary about this movie at all. It was just a gore-fest, and a particularly disturbing one at that. The acting was average, considering they were all unheard of actors, but the story was pathetic, the dialog was pathetic. The movie tries to come off as "artistic", or something. This is not one of those really great indie films that cost only thousands of dollars to make, but are incredibly well done. This was nothing more than an excuse for some extremely sick people to put their perverse obsessions on film. Other reviews here also said that the soundtrack sucked...that's because most of it was written by the same person, and some of the songs were written by one of the writers of the movie. There were no redeeming qualities to this movie at all. A complete waste of my time and money.
| 0
|
train_7052
|
Joshua Seftel's first film - a satire of memorable proportions - is about just as the title suggests: The corporations effect on War.The film is about a mercenary (John Cusack) traveling to Turaqistan (not a real country, fyi) to help the American government 'get their message across' to Turaqistan's leaders. He meets a reporter (Marisa Tomei) and we all know what will ensue with a lonely man + a hot reporter. Somewhere in the mix, a pop star named Yonica Babyyeah gets thrown in. As Yonica is marrying one of Turaquistan's most important people (a son of the president), a subplot is created where the mercenary must watch over this star, well, somewhat. The film starts off with a lonely Cusack in a bar; no more than fifteen seconds later, the film hooks you. With it's amusing and intriguing insight on terrorism and politics, the film's running time blows by you. The film has a lot more action than I expected, with the occasional scene of war, well choreographed fights and just sporadic scenes of murder. Though the story isn't much deep, the simplicity of it all makes the film perfect for both the common man and movie critics alike.In the final act of the film, the simplicity of it all turns very hostile and jumbled. I thought it was executed very well, but other may disagree, and I could understand why. Twist after twist is what the ending is all about, and like most films, it is a true hit/miss situation. Regardless, the three writers on the film (Mark Leyner, Jeremy Pikser & John Cusack) did a fantastic job creating a realistic and entertaining satire on today's situation overseas.Joshua Seftel does an excellent job insuring the film's integrity; not reducing the material to the most redundant of films (which I was afraid would happen). Seftel crafted the film as perfectly as one could: he created a vibrant atmosphere, one that is both examines harsh reality and cartoonish falsities; - contrasting them perfectly - as well as making the film feel as if you were watching it all. Seftel really gets you involved in all of the action and it pays off completely. No missteps here. Hopefully, he takes on more directorial jobs, for he is one director to look out for.
| 1
|
train_823
|
Up until the sixth and last episode of the Star Wars saga, which finally ended in 2005, I had always looked at this 1983 entry as my favorite film of the long-running series. The varied action scenes and really different characters (Jabba The Hut, furry woodland creatures, etc.) made this a particularly appealing movie.None of the action ever focused too long in one spot, either. The last half hour exemplifies this the most as the scene switches every few minutes from the woods to the battle among space ships to the individual laser-duel between Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader.Another nice characteristic this film had that the two previous did not was the absence of in-fighting between two of the stars. Gone was the incessant bickering between Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford. Finally, everyone was on the same page! It was nice to see.In the end, this was simply a wonderful adventure tale, more than anything else.
| 1
|
train_22712
|
They must issue this plot outline to all wannabe filmmakers arriving at the Hollywood bus station. They then fill in the blanks and set their story in whatever hick town or urban ghetto from which they just arrived. You know exactly what this movie is about from the opening shot, four young boys playing in grainy slow motion, accompanied by voice over narration. Next stop after the bus station must be to buy stock footage of four young boys playing in grainy slow motion. Once they're grown, it's easy to spot the writer/director among the four. He's the quiet, contemplative, long-haired one who is never seen without his composition book tucked in his pants. This means that his superb writing talent will be his ticket from Hickville to Hollywood. Only there's no writing, or directing talent on display here. And if you still can't figure out which one he is, here's a hint: The auteur and his character have the same middle name. It took over an hour to figure out that these twenty-something men were supposed to still be in high school. What looked like a prison was apparently a high school, the warden turned out to be the principal. Once more, the poor, misunderstood rebel can pound everyone in the movie into the pavement, murder and pillage, but is powerless to stand up to his alcoholic father. How about hitting back, kid, like you do everyone else? Numerous fist fight scenes for no apparent purpose. Howlingly bad dialogue. Many scenes badly out of focus. Cartoon characters keep popping up as bit players and extras, drawing unintentional laughs from the premiere audience. Overacting in the extreme. And if you don't quite get the self-important speeches, or the slow-motion scenes, just listen to the overbearing music. It will clue you in and what you're supposed to feel. Poor Marisa Ryan must be racking up lots of frequent flier mileage as she travels around the country working in these amateur regional films. The biggest sin is that the audience is supposed to feel sympathy for kids who gun down old ladies, run over puppies chained to a tree, rob and steal, all the while complaining about their sad, sorry lives. But if only we could get out of this hick town and go to college. Yeah, that's the ticket. Why is it that every twenty-something filmmaker believes that his life so far is so important, so interesting, that the world can't wait to see it onscreen? If this movie is as autobiographical as it seems, then the auteur better be looking over his shoulder for policemen bearing fugitive warrants.
| 0
|
train_5157
|
The next-to-last episode aired of the original Star Trek series is an interesting, sometimes melancholy installment that proves the show was still exploring its characters even at this point in the third season; though flawed, 'All Our Yesterdays' has its moments and overall a moody, compelling feel to it. Kirk, Spock, and McCoy beam down to a planet, assuming they are arriving in the nick of time to save or at least give some warning to whatever populace is there, since the planet's sun is due to explode within hours. But as it turns out, the people there are all too aware of the planet's fate, and using a kind of time travel device, have escaped into the past. Each person has been able to choose the time and place in the past where he or she would like to live at a 'library,' run by an elderly man named Mr. Atoz. Atoz assumes the three men are looking for a past to live in as well, and shows them various periods from which they can choose on viewers. There is some rather forced confusion at the start of the episode, with lines like:McCoy- Where did they go? Atoz- Wherever they wanted to.The misunderstanding could be cleared up rather easily, but for plot purposes, it isn't, and soon Kirk finds himself transported back to a period resembling 18th Century England, while Spock and McCoy are sent to an ice age, 5000 years in the planet's past. From here, the main focus is on Spock and his relationship with a woman exiled to this time by a tyrant as punishment. Spock begins acting increasingly emotional, showing anger toward McCoy and deep affection for Zarabeth, the woman. He eventually realizes that he is reverting back to the primitive emotional state of his ancestors on Vulcan, 5000 years ago. Kirk makes his way back to the library first, and finally convinces Mr. Atoz they don't belong in his planet's history. Spock and McCoy return just before it's too late, leaving Zarabeth behind; the Enterprise beams the three up and speeds away as the sun explodes, destroying the planet. The interaction between Spock and Zarabeth provides this episode's most memorable moments, though Kirk's adventure into the 'English' past is amusing. All in all, a very decent latter-day Star Trek outing.
| 1
|
train_9015
|
At the start, this one is from England, so, of course, I had 98 % chances that it will be intelligent and very good cinema. I never heard of this film before. From the minute I saw Helena Bonham-Carter, I said to myself : Oh! Here's comes the feminine version of My Left Foot. I was right, but I was also wrong. Wrong because the two movies are very differents. My Left Foot was a John Ford alike movie and this one is a Chaplin alike movie (not because this is funny, but Chaplin at that great sense of melodrama that brings tears to your eyes.) I was right because in 1990 handsome Daniel Day-Lewis turn a little bit ugly by playing an crippled person and he did it with a great sense of reality. Here, very beautiful Bonham-Carter did exactly the same thing, but with very feminine emotions. The story is well written and it's very intelligent. For me, miss Bonham-Carter gives one of the greatest woman's part of the 1990's, with Emily Lloyd in Breaking The Waves. Gee! And look at her eyes! She had the most beautiful eyes of cinema since Jobyna Ralston, Louise Brooks, Michele Morgan and Ava Gardner! She's also a true talent, as seen on many other movies. See this one, you won't regret it! And a very fine job by Branagh too!
| 1
|
train_3199
|
OK, I don't really think that Trailer Park Boys has bad story lines, because they kick ass. They just... conflict with each other.For Example: Near the end of the movie, it shows Ricky and Julian telling "Patrick Lewis" to put the dog down and walk away. Then at the end, it shows Ricky and Julian saying that they've been in jail for 2 years. In the TV series pilot, the first clip they show is the same clip of Ricky and Julian yelling at "Patrick Lewis". But in the TV series, they've supposedly only been in jail for 18 months.Also, they give us the impression that the movie's story line and the TV series' story line are connected (because of the yelling scene between the guys). But some actors portray totally different characters. Of course, Patrick Roach plays "Patrick Lewis" in the movie, but in the series he plays Randy. Sam Tarasco plays one of the guys who pays Ricky for an extermination, and then he plays Sam Losco in the series.Also (again... I know, I have a lot to say), in the movie, the guys snort coke instead of smoking hash. The thing is, they never actually confirm that the two story lines are connected in anyway, other than the yelling scene.Sorry to keep on blabbing.
| 1
|
train_19883
|
I feel blessed to own what is known as the worst Steven Seagal movie ever made. I knew I was on to something special when Steven opened his mouth and someone else's voice came out. By the middle of the film my eyes were beginning to hurt and I was almost falling out of my chair with uncontrollable laughter.Steven is Steven (with an ever changing voice) and totally unbelievable in his role (as always). Who the hell lets people with bad nappy-hair pony tail mullets into the Forces anyway? He also always writes himself into totally unbelievable love interests with women at least 20 years his junior. The supporting actors all look like they've been shot in the dark - btw, did they shoot this movie in the dark with just a penlight torch for lighting? This is truly abominable in every way possible. Invite all your friends around and make a social event out of it - this one's truly special.
| 0
|
train_2541
|
Okay, note to the people that put together these horror acting legends DVD-collections: I truly am grateful and I hugely support the initiative, but
have you even watched the films before selecting them as part of the collection? When I purchased the Boris Karloff collection there were several films in which the star only played a supportive and unessential role ("Tower of London", "The Strange Door"). "The Invisible Ray", however, is part of the Bela Lugosi collection and here it's actually Boris Karloff who overshadows Bela! This actually would have been a great title for the Boris Karloff collection instead! Bela Lugosi's character is quite possibly the most good-natured and earnest one he ever portrayed in his entire career and good old Karloff actually plays the mad and dangerously obsessed scientist here. "The Invisible Ray" features three main chapters. The first one, set in Dr. Janos Rukh's Carpathian castle is pretty boring and demands quite a lot of the viewer's patience, but of course the character drawings and the subject matter discussed here are fundamental for the rest of the film. Dr. Rukh (Karloff) demonstrates to a couple of eminent colleagues (among them Bela Lugosi as Dr. Benet) how he managed to capture extraterrestrial rays inside a self-manufactured device. The scientists are sincerely impressed with his work and invite Rukh and his lovely wife Diane along for an expedition in the heart of Africa. There Dr. Rukh isolates himself from the group, discovers the essential element "Radium X" to complete his medical ray and goes completely bonkers after being overexposed to the meteorite himself. The third and final act is obviously the best and most horrific one, as it revolves on a good old fashioned killing spree with ingenious gimmicks (melting statues) and a surprising climax. Karloff glows in the dark and, convinced the others are out to steal his discovery and even his life, he intends to eliminate them using his deadly touch. The narrative structure of "The Invisible Ray" sounds rather complicated, but the film is easy to follow and entertaining. The story is rather far-fetched but nevertheless compelling and director Lambert Hillyer provides several moments of sheer suspense. Boris Karloff is truly fantastic and so is Lugosi, even though he deserved to have a little more screen time. Their scenes together are the highlights of the film, along with the funky images of the glowing Boris.
| 1
|
train_6637
|
Story says that on that on December 28, 1895, a small group of thirty-three people was gathered at Paris's Salon Indien Du Grand Café to witness the Cinématographe, a supposedly new invention that resulted from the work done by a couple of photographers named August and Louis Lumière. The small audience reunited that day (some by invitation, most due to curiosity) didn't really know what to expect from the show, and when a stationary photograph appeared projected on a screen, most thought that the Cinématographe was just another fancy devise to present slide-show projections. Until the photograph started to move. What those thirty-three people experienced in awe that cold day of December was the very first public screening of a moving picture being projected on a screen; history was being written and cinema as we know it was born that day.Of the 10 short movies that were shown during that historic day, "La Sortie Des Usines Lumière" (literally "Exiting the Lumière Factory") was the very first to be screened. The film shows the many workers of the Lumière factory as they walk through the gates of the factory, leaving the building at the end of a hard day of work. While a very basic "actuality film" (movie depicting a real event), the movie took everyone in the audience by surprise, as their concept of moving pictures was limited to Edison's "Peep Show" machines (the Kinetoscope), the brothers' invention was like nothing they had seen before and so the audience stood in awe, as the people and the horses moved across the screen. The idea wasn't entirely new (Le Prince shot the first movie as early as 1888), but the way of showing the movie was simply revolutionary."La Sortie Des Usines Lumière" would become the first in the long series of "actuality films" that the Lumière would produce over the years. This primitive form of documentary was the brothers' favorite kind of film because they were more interested in the technological aspects of their invention than in the uses the Cinématographe could have. Despite the initial lack of enthusiasm, after the first showing the Cinématographe became a great success and "La Sortie Des Usines Lumière" quickly became an iconic image of that first screening. It definitely wasn't the first movie the brothers shot that year, and it probably wasn't the best of the 10 movies shown that day (personally I think that "L' Arroseur Arrosé" was the best of the 10); however, it is really meaningful that the very first movie was the opening of a pair of gates, as literally, this movie opened the gates to cinema as we know it. 8/10
| 1
|
train_16718
|
This isn't one of those reviews about poor special effects or technology, or being dated, issues that only the dorkiest people could relate with, but rather a review on the story telling, which most of us are truly interested in.The plot is about a combination of WWII Allied and German Navy members, and two civilians (the hero and heroine), who are thrust together on a German U boat and wind up in a savage land of dinosaurs.The manipulations aren't so bad by film standards, and we know from the plot that realism isn't going to be high. What films like this need are credible and likable characters, along with some semblance of reason in the actions.This film lacks both. For a full length film, only 6 characters are given any time, and 3 of them are barely looked into. McClure's hero is beyond "routine", and doesn't make much sense in any era.The female seems to be looking for an answer to a riddle about the land of dinosaurs they entered, but the riddle is not much of a riddle, and we could care less.A lot of failure in a film that should have been better, even for its time.
| 0
|
train_9631
|
A LAUREL & HARDY Comedy Short. The Boys arrive to sweep the chimneys at the home of Professor Noodle, a mad scientist who's just perfected his rejuvenation serum. Stan & Ollie proceed with their DIRTY WORK, spreading destruction inside the house and on the roof. Then the Professor wants to try out his new potion...A very funny little film. The ending is a bit abrupt, but much of the slapstick leading up to it is terrific. Especially good is Stan & Ollie's contest of wills at opposite ends of the chimney. That's Lucien Littlefield as the Professor.
| 1
|
train_17386
|
Due to budget cuts, Ethel Janowski (again played by Priscilla Alden) is released from a mental institution (even though she killed six people) and delivered to the Hope Bartholomew halfway house. Once there, she immediately relapses into her criminally insane ways and kills anyone who gets between her and her food.HOLY MOLY! Does this movie suck! You know you are in trouble when the open credits start up and they are just the credits from the first film, apparently filmed off a TV screen. Nick Millard (under his pseudonym Nick Phillips) decided to return to the world of Crazy Fat Ethel over ten years later and with a budget that probably covered the cost of a blank tape and a video camera rental for the weekend. Let's just say that Millard's unique style doesn't translate well to video. Seriously, I have made home movies with more production value than this. And Millard tries to pull a SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT 2 by padding half the running time with footage from the first film (which looks like it was taken off a worn VHS copy). Alden is again good as Ethel but the film is so inept that you start to feel sorry for her for starring in this garbage. I mean, at least the first film tried. Here we have no music, weaker effects (if that is at all possible), shaky camera work, horrible audio and editing that looks like it was done with two VCRs hooked up. Avoid this at all costs!
| 0
|
train_24011
|
I had the (mis)fortune to see this film at a showing in the US. Having reluctantly sat through the entire abysmal thing, I am shocked to have seen so many good reviews here on IMDB. The original film was a turkey, but an interesting one. It fitted into that early seventies, post 1969 revolution thing; this film just stinks of....... , well, nothing really. It's that bad.Imagine a badly done perfume commercial - see what I mean ?Madonna never could act, and has been an embarrassment on the big screen for years. She looks worse and worse with every one of those years, increasingly coming to resemble a skinned meerkat.Guy Ritchie, who has built his "reputation" on Lock Stock, could never direct either - his movies are shallow, badly cut, fashion shows. He doesn't disappoint here either; he wisely cast his wife as the star of this debacle.Please people, take little heed of the good reviews this movie has received from other posters below. They are quite obviously business plants.Don't encourage Ritchie to humiliate himself further by giving him money.
| 0
|
train_23030
|
Disappointing musical version of Margaret Landon's "Anna and the King of Siam", itself filmed in 1946 with Irene Dunne and Rex Harrison, has Deborah Kerr cast as a widowed schoolteacher and mother who travels from England to Siam in 1862 to accept job as tutor to the King's many children--and perhaps teach the Royal One a thing or two in the process! Stagy picture begins well, but quickly loses energy and focus. Yul Brynner, reprising his stage triumph as the King, is a commanding presence, but is used--per the concocted story--as a buffoon. Kerr keeps her cool dignity and fares better, despite having to lip-synch to Marni Nixon's vocals. Perhaps having already played this part to death, Brynner looks like he had nothing leftover for the screen translation except bombast. Second-half, with Anna and the moppets staging a musical version of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is quite ridiculous, and the Rodgers and Hammerstein songs are mostly lumbering. Brynner won a Best Actor Oscar, but it is feisty Kerr who keeps this bauble above water. Overlong, heavy, and 'old-fashioned' in the worst sense of the term. ** from ****
| 0
|
train_5658
|
This was one of the best shows ever made for TV. Full of mystery and intrigue and twists and turns. Compulsive viewing. I was lucky I saw this in the UK. They might have got the episode order wrong, I can't remember, but it at least was on at a regular time every week. My girlfriend and I got hooked from the trailer in, and neither of us is a big fan of American series normally.After the pilot, we knew this was something special. We missed a couple of episodes, and it made you sad and mad for a week missing those ones lol.Great casting, superb acting. Gary Cole was absolutely brilliant, better even than his role as Custer. Lucas Black turned in an amazing performance for a kid, and Paige Turco was at her best too since Party of Five. And Nick Searcy of course, as the Sheriff's long suffering sidekick.Yes, there were some confusing and perplexing bits, which I presume would have been explained later, and no doubt would have been in a later series. That made the ending weak, and you could tell they'd killed it. Made us go WHAT? Why did they do that with one of the best shows ever? Shoot the exec.
| 1
|
train_24138
|
"Blood of the Sacred, Blood of the Damned" is the third installment of the Gabriel Knight games, a series of adventure games about the roguish writer/paranormal detective, Gabriel Knight. Gabriel and his companion, Grace, have been asked by Prince James of Albany to investigate a series of mysterious attacks by so-called "night visitors." When the son of Prince James is kidnapped, Gabriel pursues the night visitors to Rennes le Château, where he begins piecing together a mystery relating to the Holy Grail.Despite the marketing, this game is not about vampires. Vampires have a token appearance in the game, but never command center stage, as did the voodoo hounfor in "Sins of the Fathers" or the werewolves in "The Beast Within." Gabriel and Grace make no attempt to uncover the true nature of vampires, or to research lore on vampires. Although the vampires do murder three people during the course of the game, their victims are chosen at random and have nothing to do with the main plot.A large part of the charm of the first two Gabriel Knight installments was in the relationships which Gabriel formed with the villains. Through these relationships, the player could not help but sympathize with the villain, and thus the villain was transformed into more of a human and less of a monster. However, in "Blood of the Sacred," Gabriel's only interaction with the villain is through a single, cheesy interview, which does nothing to endear the villain to the player.The roles that Gabriel and Grace play in this mystery are fairly futile. Gabriel spends his time snooping into the identities of members of a treasure-hunter tour group staying at his hotel, but what he uncovers amounts to nothing more than a red herring. Grace spends her time researching the mystery of Rennes le Château, but all her research is rendered superfluous by the presence of a perplexing ally who has known the answer to this mystery for centuries.The actions of this perplexing ally and his polar opposite --- the vampire leader --- are insupportable. The ally leaves hints about the mystery of Rennes le Château in broad daylight and expects Grace (and not the other treasure hunters from the tour group) to find them. However, he could have revealed the mystery to Grace in its entirety on day 1, instead of putting the kidnapped child at risk for an additional 48 hours. And in the end, he simply tells Grace the mystery in its entirety anyway.Meanwhile, the vampire leader fails to achieve the goals of centuries of scheming, because he chooses to refrain from action for two days after the kidnapping of the child. The only reason given for his decision to delay action is that he wants to savor his victory.The game would have been much better had it been purely focused on the Holy Grail. The kidnapping and vampires should have been omitted, replaced with a race against the Vatican to uncover the mystery of Rennes le Château. Since Gabriel is portrayed more than once as reluctantly Catholic, this conflict would have had many opportunities for character development.All in all, the game was a disappointing installment in the series, despite an improved interface and the return of Tim Curry as the voice of Gabriel Knight.
| 0
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.