id
stringlengths 7
11
| text
stringlengths 52
10.2k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|---|
train_24205
|
This stuffy melodrama is quite easily the worst film starring Ingrid Bergman that I've seen. Even her luminous screen presence can't save this insufferably slow and meandering movie that's nearly impossible to sit through without fast-forwarding a lot of it.Only for die-hard Bergman fans; others are very likely to fall asleep. I suggest you to watch "For Whom the Bell Tolls" instead.
| 0
|
train_13028
|
I never expect a film adaptation to follow too closely to the novel (especially a beloved one, like Evening) but when I saw that the book's author, Susan Minot, was a screenplay writer and executive producer on the film, I thought that Evening would be a good adaptation.If you enjoyed the book, don't bother with this movie. It is so far afield of the book that the two hardly bear any resemblance to one another.Here, our characters are completely different: the bride is in love with Harris. Harris is the son of the housekeeper. Buddy is a drunk, in love with Ann and/or Harris. I don't think a single character made it from the book to the screen; oh it just gets worst with every passing moment.And, really, didn't we learn from Bridges of Madison County that cutting from the story we are meant to be enthralled in, to scenes of our heroes' grown children having obnoxious and juvenile fights, simply does not work on film? This film is a disaster. Skip it.
| 0
|
train_4744
|
In Black Mask, Jet Li plays a bio-engineered super-killer turned pacifist, who has to fight against other super-killers. Bad plot, bad sfx(60 million dollar budget), but the fighting scenes were excellent! Jet Li is the greatest martial-arts star alive!
| 1
|
train_13439
|
I loved the Batman tv series and was really looking forward to this. But they tried to do too much.Why they had the story of Adam West and Burt Ward trying to recover the batmobile was beyond me. I don't want to knock Burt or Adam for the way they look now.....It's been 35 years since they appeared at Batman and Robin, but to see them dressed in dress suits and fighting 'badguys' was kinda sad. I would rather of just seen the ex-stars do commentary. The batmobile side story was stupid.As for the flashback movie, I think it was too short and left out way too much. It was really just a quick overview in my opinion. I'd like more background. They showed the Penguin and Joker for about a minute each just to tell the same stuff I already knew. The Joker had a mustache under his makeup and the penguin had to smoke even though he hated it and was an ex-smoker. That was it on those 2.I'd love to read the book. I am sure it has more in it that this showed. Like why was there 2 Riddlers or why 3 Catwoman's or 3 Mister Freezes. Where was Commishioner Gordon, Cheif OHara, Alfred, Mister Freeze, King Tut, etc. the List goes on. Like I said even the ones that were in this one were barely in it.Very disappointing. And really corny.
| 0
|
train_17267
|
I watched this movie as I liked the plot, a group of strangers are held captive trying to figure out how they're connected.The setting and the premise were obviously influenced by the first (and best) Saw movie & although there wasn't much action the story moved at a relatively good pace.There was comedy relief ion the form of the two bickering 'Alpha males' and it was a welcome surprise (for me anyway)to see Melissa Joan Hart hasn't given up on acting yet.A few things let it down for me personally; 1. The paedophile was way over characterised making him get turned on by everything from children to dead bodies.2. MJH's line about her cop ex 'getting her into this' when in reality, he was the least deserving person to be there, he hadn't KNOWINGLY contributed to the events leading up to their capture.3. The ending..... what sort of movie just ends in the middle of something going on? There was no resolution, no cliff hanger, no obvious end... it just ends.And for that alone I dropped two stars off my rating. The first 2 points I would let slide but not the end!
| 0
|
train_9251
|
what can i say?, ms Erika Eleniak is my favorite blonde girl ever, and like a Italian American, fan number one of female beauty i can't forget this movie.you know i really don't remember a lot about the plot, or the situations or the other actors . i only can remember about drop dead gorgeous Erika and that in this film she looks better than ever, i really don't care if it was a bad movie or a good movie, i only care the nice moments i had been a teenager in Brooklyn just contemplating Erika's beauty.Well just to conclude if you are an Erika Eleniak's beauty fan like me definitely this film is for you.
| 1
|
train_3436
|
Letters with no destination end up in another world found in the back rooms of the post office. Here, Alice manages to land a job in hope of finding her lost father. What she does discover is the tormented soul of her boss, Frank. A quiet little Aussie flic that came and went at the cinema. Now you find it in the deep dark corner of the video shop, overshadowed by fifty copies of that dreaded GODZILLA film. It's a shame because this turned out to be a satisfying film telling a brave tale with strong simple images and effective performances from the two leads. This film succeeds where Garry Marshall's other dead letter office flic DEAR GOD (1996 - USA) failed, and comes close to the brilliance of, not the Kevin Costner turkey, but He Jianjun's POSTMAN (1995 - China).
| 1
|
train_20796
|
Basically, a dentist husband-wife team and their 3 daughters deal with infidelity. The premise is interesting, the acting is good, and the music, although sometimes abrupt and without direction, is pretty cool.The problem is the plot. The husband dentist drops his wife off backstage at an opera before the show (she has a minor role) and then walks back in to give her something, but sees her with another man. The rest of the movie deals with his angst about this episode, his visual hallucinations and a macho alter-ego (Denis Leary, a former patient of his) and his fear in confronting his wife lest he will have to "do something about it." I won't tell you the ending, but let me say that the film goes nowhere and the ending is like a sputtering whimper. The motivations of the characters are missing: Why is she cheating on him? He's a dentist, decent looking, good father. The film doesn't say. Who's she doing it with? Don't expect any answers on that either. Why does he want to keep the marriage going in spite of all this? Who knows. What purpose does all the kids vomiting serve? Where is this film going? Good performances by Campbell Scott and Hope Davis (and Denis Leary as comic relief)are completely wasted by this stilted nonsense which doesn't know if it wants to be American Beauty or a family film. A root canal is more interesting. Avoid it.
| 0
|
train_10599
|
SPOILERS Many different comedy series nowadays have at one point or another experimented with the idea of obscure independence. In an early episode of cartoon "Family Guy" the Griffin family find their home is an independent nation to the United States of America and the story progresses from there. Way back in 1949 however, the Ealing Studios produced a wonderful little film along the same idea.After a child's prank, the residents of Pimlico discover a small fortune in treasure. At the inquest it becomes clear that the small area is a small outcrop of the long lost state of Burgundy. Withdrawing from London and the rest of Great Britain, the residents of the small street experience the joys and the problems with being an independent state.Based at a time when rationing was still in operation, this story is brilliantly told and equally inspiring. Featuring performances by Stanley Holloway, Betty Warren, Philip Stainton and a young Charles Hawtrey, the film is well stocked with some of the finest actors of their generation. These actors are well aided as well by a superb little script with some cracking lines. Feeling remarkably fresh, despite being over 50 years old, the story never feels awkward and always keeps the audience entertained.Ealing Studios was one of the finest exporters of British film ever in existence. With films like "Passport to Pimlico" it's not difficult to see why. Amusing from start to finish, the story is always fun and always worth watching.
| 1
|
train_21531
|
Payback is the game being played in this drama and the revenge plot is undone by the absurd story line that sets the stage for the fireworks that come later. Why would a man become involved with the trophy wife of a ruthless mob boss in the gangster's own mansion with suspicious henchmen all around? Why would an unhappy wife encourage the attentions of a complete stranger and expect him to carry her away with him and leave her husband and boredom behind to live happily ever after with her new love? Surely the hero, here Kevin Costner, must have expected a reaction from the cuckold husband that gives the movie an excuse to indulge in senseless gore and violence. Anthony Quinn, great actor that he was, surely deserved better, and Madeleine Stowe is the tragic figure who suffers greatly as she latches on to her prince charming. Stowe is okay but her Spanish accent doesn't work. The cameos of the lesser players are good, especially Miguel Ferrer and John Leguizamo and Sally Kirkland is interesting as a fading rock star.
| 0
|
train_14194
|
This movie may seem scary on commercials, but the actual movie was a reason to vomit. This is a below below average, (even lower than that) and has no plot. I mean every house can make you feel scared and sure, a dead Japanese woman would scare the poop out of you, but so what? Make a movie that would appeal to watchers and not just show images of scared people and some hair (dead Japanese woman). Can you say "horrible rip-off of Samara (The Ring)"? Don't get me started with the "dead child". Not even that scary! So what? He has a cat and he can imitate it, big freaking deal! Just bury the poor zombies and save some lives that have the potential of being harmed by the Grudge! 1/10! Yuck! >.<
| 0
|
train_2815
|
Cannot believe my eyes when read quite a bunch of other comments and reviews. As if it were a mediocre movie of some run-of-the-mill dudes.The movie is great, funny, crazy, over-the-top violent though with minimum gore, and all the way energetic to the core. Loved every single bit of it. Can't remember anything insane like this made for laughs and martial art showing off. And now the most important thing (at least to me): it is computer effects free. When I watch some Hollywood actors duking it out on screen in modern high-resolution and damn high-budgeted action "fuflo" (a Russian word that means "bull*beep*"), I understand that any *beep* child can do it - you can adjust the wires to the body, add some cute PC effects, and stuff it into the action film. Here it is different. I don't think that there will be even a dozen of physically advanced action stars worldwide, who can repeat the brawl that takes place at the end of the film or the "Chinese football" play. And it is just a little Hong Kong cinema made for fun, not pretending to be "Star Wars".Having a DVD with English soundtrack is not a problem with this movie. It does not spoil the atmosphere to me.Can't help mentioning a very neat theatrical play. Some of you, suppose, won't like it. As to me - it's amazing. Have a look at the Dragon's friend who is talking in a brave manner to the criminals and all of a sudden gets a fist punch in his left side of the head. His face expression changes into something whimsical and he comes up to Dragon with a baby expression. And take a look at the menacing size of his mouth - it's nearly from one ear to the other long when he makes grimaces.This movie deserves a higher rating and a thousand comments from people all over the world. Very thankful to our Russian industry for the releases of classic Jackie Chan movies. His modern ones are much weaker in my humble opinion and do not deserve much hype.Total 10 out of 10 - a legendary movie in its genre. Thank you for attention.
| 1
|
train_19827
|
Heavy-handed moralism. Writers using characters as mouthpieces to speak for themselves. Predictable, plodding plot points (say that five times fast). A child's imitation of Britney Spears. This film has all the earmarks of a Lifetime Special reject.I honestly believe that Jesus Nebot and Julia Montejo set out to create a thought-provoking, emotional film on a tough subject, exploring the idea that things are not always black and white, that one who is a criminal by definition is not necessarily a bad human being, and that there can be extenuating circumstances, especially when one puts the well-being of a child first. However, their earnestness ends up being channeled into preachy dialogue and trite situations planted to move the plot along. The decent production values and interesting use of documentary-style camera footage are not enough to accomplish their aim when the script and the acting fall flat.Logic is often compromised for the sake of creating tension: Soid first tries to blackmail Pablo into participating in her documentary in exchange for helping them escape, then in the same breath basically tells him not to trust her because she's not helping them out of altruism. Well, duh. And for a man on the run, Pablo is far too swayed by a temper tantrum. Cristina's well-being is so important to him that he's fleeing capture and jail or deportation for her, but he's willing to risk all that to appease her when she doesn't want to go to Mexico. Right. Talk above over-permissive parenting. Third, when Pablo's employer Charlie gives the phone to Detective Bright, she is remarkably unprofessional, especially given her seniority - did she really think she was persuasive? Oh, yeah, I would have turned myself in. CCH Pounder's Detective Wims could wipe the floor with her.To be fair, I'd like to list the things I liked. Um, I liked the midget. And I liked the fact that the midget was named Sexy. There's cross-dressing, always a plus; juvenile cross-dressing, no less! Harry is infinitely cuter than Cristina. But my favorite moment in the film has to be when Cristina kicks Detective Not-So-Bright. I also find it interesting that, in a heavily minority cast (which I much appreciate, by the way), the black character is the racist one. Too bad it's just thrown out there and not further explored.There's a distinctive, unconventional score, but it's nonetheless generally context-unspecific, not enhancing mood or tension in any scene, except the pathetic, anguished wailing every time the main character is in anguish, as though they think his acting doesn't show it enough: 'Just in case you weren't sure, he's upset, and we have the musical cues to prove it.'Stilted, clichéd dialogue results in a depressing lack of subtext; everything has to be spelled out in dialogue, even when the body language had been up 'til then conveying it just fine. For example, every impassioned speech Pablo makes, and Mrs. Knight's lament that her child won't be crawling into bed with them in the morning.'Papi, tell me about Mama again' - what shameless, blatant exposition introducing the generic dead wife! (She's always the most beautiful woman the widower had ever seen, the kindest he had ever met. Why can't we see a man cry over a woman like Shakespeare's - she may be fat, ugly, obnoxious, but his love for her is deep as oceans? Now _there's_ a story which would move me.)The police always being literally one step behind them gives many scenes the out-of-place feeling of a French farce. Most boring foot chases ever - Bright and Lightning are so out-of-shape and easily-fooled (he certainly isn't quick as lightning, and she, well, I don't feel the need to spell things out). Some guy dragging along a small child outrunning a bicycle cop, complete with macho biker picking a fight but then being felled by a child? To quote Margaret Cho, that's so sad. Would we ever see this on 'Cops '?Hackneyed and over-the-top deus ex machina: as an employer, would you really waive checking his green card just because he can quote the author of the inspirational saying on a poster behind your desk?Plus several scenes, including the above, threaten to devolve into porn: 'Well, I'll do this favor for you, as long as you do something for me...' I can almost hear the bowm-chicka-bowm-bowm.When the parents view the footage shot of Pablo's remorse, the grieving mom's freak-out is the most real the movie feels. Unfortunately, this is diminished by the fact that she looks completely swayed by his emotional speech right up until she goes ballistic. A more ambivalent look would be more convincing here.I'm in constant awe of the stupidity of the main character doing things for the sake of plot: holding up a convenience store without a mask, visiting the dead girl's grave. And why doesn't the mother recognize his face from when she saw him before he drove off?! 'You seem awfully familiar...'What is the purpose of that wholly unnecessary, somewhat gratuitous scene with Soid and the artificially-enhanced bartender? Character development? Tch. Too little, too late.Speaking of unnecessary traits that never went anywhere, Detective Lightning's saying skeptical Detective Bright must be a Scorpio shows how little he really knows about the occult. And I don't think that believing in fate quite qualifies as voodoo mumbo jumbo.At the end, when Bright holds Pablo as he dies - wait, why does she care now? Her character is as inconsistent as Soid's. What, she has to shoot him just because she said 'Stop, or I'll shoot'? (She's cared _so_much_ about her integrity thus far.) He was unarmed. There was no need for lethal force. What's wrong with shooting him in the leg to immobilize him?Finally, Cristina's childlike acceptance of her mother's death giving Dr. Knight peace over his daughter's death - so forced. And the contrivance of the family whose child was killed becoming Cristina's new family... It angers me that she could be a 'replacement' for their little girl. It's also unrealistic that a white couple would take in the Latino daughter of the man who killed their own daughter. I'm not saying there aren't generous, loving people who would do that. I'm just saying that the characters here are never developed far enough for me to believe that _they_ would do that.I find it offensive that another IMDb reviewer said that of course as a woman she was moved by the sappy scenes. I am a woman who reserves my emotional movements for moments that don't wax sentimental in a manufactured manner.Co-writer, co-director, co-star Nebot said himself he wore too many hats during this production. Too many cooks may spoil the broth, but one cook alone just might end up making an after-school special.In conclusion, this film's title has less to do with the story and more to do with the feeling of regret, helplessness, and loss accompanying the revelation that you will never see your money again.
| 0
|
train_24160
|
Keenan Ivory Wayans is probably one of the worst directors, i swear he has no real knowledge on how to make films. he has made one brilliant film and that is scary movie. scary movie 2 was OK too but everything else Keenan has made are real disasters. avoid such titles like don't be a menace to south central while drinking your juice in the hood..... i know, what a title !!! obviously this film too, just anything that has Keenans name in the credits.it was an hour and a half on stupid nonsense that never made me laugh. just trust me on this, maybe women might like this film a little because of some of things that happen but on a whole this film will never be liked by anyone with a good taste in films........ 1/10.......j.d Seaton
| 0
|
train_12076
|
This was a typical grade B movie in 1940s Hollywood and yet it succeeded way beyond its expectations. Why? It has a wonderful plot and backed up by Nina Foch, George MacReady and Dame May Witty, as a female villain, of all people.When a young lady answers an advertisement for a secretary, she certainly gets more than she bargained for. The only talents her employers are seeking are those which will lead to her demise. Seems that Witty and MacReady want to pass her off as their daughter-in-law and wife, respectively. MacReady killed his real wife and wants to do Foch in as well so that a body can be claimed.The film deals with how Foch tries to get town people to believe her and how she is thwarted in practically everything she does. Why don't people believe her?
| 1
|
train_22444
|
Well our standards have gone into the toilet. The direction was poor, the acting was mediocre and the writing was amateurish. And those are the good points. Hopefully there won't be a sequel. Otherwise, I might have to leave the country.
| 0
|
train_5543
|
Very well done and spooky horror movie from poverty-row film company PRC who usually put out really cheesy films like DEVIL BAT or THE FLYING SERPENT. German expatriate director Wisbar does wonders with a small budget and his studio-bound swamp set. Gaunt and ghoulish Charles Middleton is effective as the Strangler.
| 1
|
train_15792
|
For this review,a list of good points and bad points.I'll start with the bad.Bad points:The casting choices(especially Burt Reynolds as Boss Hogg),the acting of said badly chosen cast,the storyline,the idea of setting the film in the modern day,the direction,the editing,the soundtrack,and above all,the whole idea of making a feature film out of a television series that wasn't that great to start with,despite it's popularity.Good points:Jessica Simpson in a red bikini............that's it!One might make an analogy here.In the scene where Jessica Simpson as Daisy Duke struts her way up to Michael Weston as Enos,and asks the question,"Enos,where's Boss Hogg and Roscoe?",in his clouded judgment, tells her where they are.She might just as well have asked,"Enos,is this a good movie?",the red bikini would have clouded his judgment into saying yes,even though in his right mind he would have said,"No, not really."As good as she looked in the bikini,she could have been stark naked,and even that would not have saved this horrible piece of film-making.Stay out of Hazzard!
| 0
|
train_4162
|
Yeah, it is. In fact, it's somewhere in my top 20 all time favorite movies. Number 15, I think. Anyways, I'm usually not one for plots, but I think plots work better in anime and RPG video games, (Final Fantasy 7, for example) and not movies. But this one has it all. Vivid drawings of planets, stars, an extremely well written screenplay. While this is not really for children, they can still watch it, it contains no graphic blood, guts and silicone. But I don't think they're going to understand it.
| 1
|
train_22075
|
first of all let's start out by saying that Robert Englund Doug Bradley and Melinda Clark should be commended for having to be associated with this piece of drivel. i had to give this a 1 it wouldn't let me give it a zero. wanna know how bad this movie is? my mom calls me from across town and tells me "son, i just watched the stupidest movie ever. i responded as saying "the killer tongue huh?" she was like how did you know that? that's how bad this movie is. i mean it looked like a good movie at first Freddy pinhead Melinda. okay i'll give it a chance. i sat through the rest of this movie only because i wrote a column for reviews of horror movies. i implore you, don't waste your time money or even brain cells on this ludicrous piece of crap. run away. far away. if you see it on the shelf at Hollywood video blockbuster or even your local video store, turn it around and walk away....and i still want my two hours back dang it
| 0
|
train_7721
|
A flying saucer manned (literally) by a crew of about 20 male space explorers travels hundreds of millions of light years from earth to check in on a colony founded some 25 years ago on a 'forbidden planet.' What they find is a robot more advanced than anything imaginable on earth, a beautiful and totally socially inept young woman, and her father, a hermit philologist haunted by more than the demons of the ancient civilization he has immersed himself in.On the surface, this story is a pulp scifi murder mystery. Some compare it to Shakespeare's Tempest, but this is a stretch, and, in some ways, an insult to the scifi genre. Stripped of what makes it a scifi film, sure, its The Tempest, but how many hundreds of films can you say something similar about? Underneath, this is a cautionary tale about progress and technology and the social evolution necessary for its appropriate and safe use. Yet the film still proceeds with all the hopefulness for our future that we have come to expect from shows like Star Trek.Anne Francis is not the only reason why this film is best described as beautiful. The special effects, and even the aesthetics of the backdrops are powerful enough to make the uninspired directing and uneven acting almost unnoticeable. If it were not for the goofy retro-art-deco-ness of 1950s sci-fi props, you might think you were watching a 1960s piece.This is a classic of that very special sub-genre of sci fi I like to call 1950s sci-fi, and, though not, in my opinion, the best it is certainly a must see for anybody interested in sci-fi film and special effects. The clever plot, now rendered trite by its reuse in six or seven episodes of Star Trek, Lost in Space, and even Farscape, is worth paying attention to, and will sustain the interest of most scifi fans. Trekkers will be particularly interested in the various aspects of the film which seem to have inspired themes of Star Trek's original series aired about 12 years later, though they may find themselves disappointed by the (relatively mild) 1950s sexism and the lack of any kind of racial integration. While I do not mean to nitpick, the lack of social progress manifest in this film was the one major problem I had with it. Some will probably see this film simply to catch a glimpse of young, good-looking Leslie Nielsen in one of his first starring roles. Unfortunately, Nielsen's performance is only average, and at times down-right poor (especially at the climax of the film). Walter Pigeon, though quite excellent in other films, over-acts his role as well. Ms Francis, Earl Holliman, and the amazing Robby the Robot are the stand-out actors in this crowd, though on the whole the character actors filling in the ensemble do a good job. The problems with the featured performances, I think, are as much the fault of the director and the editor, as anything. Though they certainly got most of the film quite right.
| 1
|
train_786
|
Andie MacDowell's facial expressions are great again in this movie. When you enter 40 and have been single for a while (or all your life) you may feel you are wasting away. The movie is a sweet reminder that love can be found just anywhere if your antennae is acutely active. I liked the quick sexual encounter, which must be out of character for a normally reserved school teacher (MacDowell). Her ex-student is cute enough, still carrying a crush on his teacher for so long. There are some parts that I thought rather unrealistic or unpractical, though. For example, at a scene where the other women's jealousy override and a scene was set up to make Andie MacDowell dump the young man, would a mature police officer (the other friend of MacDowell) allow her friend to do such a sinister act? Is it so easy for anyone to not stop in front of a car? Of course accidents happen all the time, but I hoped to see the heroine get happily married with the first man she got involved with (that was the hardest part to believe!! For such a beautiful woman to stay single for so long??)... Maybe the movie producers are aware of the fact that many romance between an older woman and a younger man do not last for long. Beside they know that a happy ending would not appeal to the public, especially to jealousy women over 40, who are waiting some miracles to happen. The sad ending with a glimpse of hope for the sad woman who lost her true love is sweet, but if the man continued to live, would that last? For how long? Nobody knows. Nonetheless, it's a movie to make you want to watch it again sometime later.... a year later maybe.
| 1
|
train_17044
|
This movie is just not worth your time. Its reliance upon New-Age mysticism serves as its only semi-interesting distraction. The plot is one that has been re-cycled countless times.I was only prompted to even spend the time to put in a comment when I noted that some have tried to prop-up the reputation of this drivel. Their motivation & objectivity is dubious, since they encourage you not to look at the movies faults, but at its well intentioned message of New Age consciousness.So would it be alright for some twenty to thirty Evangelical Christians, or Islamic Fundamentalists to pour in positive ratings about movies/television that support their views? In spite of the poor qualities of production, or the lack of truth in any of its supposed historic basis? I hope not.I am sure the followers will come right behind me to say flowery things about this movie, in spite of the truth.
| 0
|
train_11412
|
Nicely and intelligently played by the two young girls, Mischa Barton as Frankie, and Ingrid Uribe as Hazel, although the plot is rather a stretch of the imagination. Young Hazel running for mayor seems out of place, to be honest.While the acting is well done by all concerned the movie tends to lack a genuine atmosphere of drama. Perhaps we've grown to expect gritty reality in movies, rather like comparing Pollyanna to How Green Was My Valley! Never mind, each of them are good in their own way.I do admire Joan Plowright even if her role is somewhat subdued here. Middle of the road entertainment well suited for younger viewers, and how nice at times to be exposed to fine classical music which is almost a rarity!I find this movie to be a welcomed change as it reflects quieter, thoughtful values for the growing up years, and no violence thank goodness. A warm family film to enjoy.
| 1
|
train_14848
|
Ashley Judd, in an early role and I think her first starring role, shows her real-life rebellious nature in this slow-moving feminist soap opera. Wow, is this a vehicle for political correctness and extreme Liberalism or what?Being a staunch feminist in real life, she must have cherished this script. No wonder Left Wing critic Roger Ebert loved this movie; it's right up his political alley, too.Unlike the reviewers here, I am glad Judd elevated herself from this moronic fluff to better roles in movies that entertained, not preached the heavy-handed Liberal agenda.
| 0
|
train_24070
|
the intention the directors has for this films are quite honorable, but his history of his productions did get me aware that this might not get much to the core like other film makers would do it. keeping his great 30 days TV series in mind but also counting in his MTV production "i bet you will" that opposes his seriousness in any of the matters he documents and also counting in his rather disappointing production "supersize me" i did not had my hopes up high. sadly enough this movie disappointed me none the less. as with "supersize me" after a while i did ask myself what exactly the point of all this was. the main statement gets clear enough after half an hour but the rest of the playtime gets filled with rather pointless stuff and re-repeating stuff that were already shown in this way or another earlier in the movie, so it wears out and gets extremely boring towards the end.
| 0
|
train_16846
|
Why oh why do people take good material and feel the need to change it some how? Having read the book on which this film is allegedly based a couple of years ago, I can say that there is little if anything from the original book. I went into this film with low expectations - i knew it would have a crappy telemovie feel to it - but it even failed to meet these.This is not a prequel - the only relationship it has with the original is the name. This is not the story of Carlito Brigante, it is the story of a totally different character who's been given the same name. They have just totally spat in the face of every Carlito's Way fan out there; adding insult to injury by casting Luis Guzman, who plays a crucial character in the original movie, in a different role.What's most disappointing is that now that this film has been made no other film will be made addressing the original, untouched material of the book Carlito's Way - something I really would have liked to have seen. I felt the same way about Chopper - they have four books as well as interviews worth of fantastic non-fictional material and could have made a brilliant biography of Australia's most feared underworld figure, instead they made a ho-hum film about a deranged but strangely pathetic small time crook (though Eric Bana's performance was spot-on). Now we will never get to see Carlito's real initial rise and fall.The three stars is because, looking at it purely as a stand-alone flick, it is not so appalling - there are some decent performances (Jay Hernandez is no Carlito but he could be good in other roles) and the story is not too bad. Even Puffy Combs suits his role. But they totally misunderstand the nature of the underworld at that time (I am a bit of a crime-non-fiction buff)- something which the original film and the books got right (having been written by then attorney and now judge Edwin Torres).The fact is though, it's not a stand alone - it's perhaps the most disappointing prequel ever filmed.
| 0
|
train_11969
|
I loved this show growing up and I still watch the first season DVD at age 19 today. What can I say? I grew up in a house much like the one on Full House. I had a dad, two sisters, and a dog. I guess the only difference was that I did not live with my uncle and my dad's best friend. Also, I grew up with my mom in the house. I don't know what I would have done without Full House on television. I think that Stephanie (played by Jodie Sweetin), D.J. (played by Kirk Cameron's sister Candace), and Michelle (Played by Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen) are my favorite characters. I can relate to each of them because I am the middle child of my family like Steph, I am a younger sister like Michelle, and I am an older sister like D.J. I really like how the show always has moral values because I don't really like any of the O.C.-like shows today. I like the comedy of Full House, too. Uncle Jesse (John Stamos), Joey (Dave Coulier), and Danny (Bob Saget) are hilarious as the girls' uncle, dad's friend, and dad, respectively. The story goes that, after the girls' mom dies, Danny's best friend Joey and his brother-in-law, Jesse move in to help raise the kids. Three men trying to raise three young girls=hilarious. Each character on Full House is full of heart, funny, and genuinely believable. Joey is an aspiring comedian with a kid's heart and soul. Jesse is the cool, motorcycle riding, tough-guy uncle who is softened by his three nieces, and later, his wife Becky (Laurie Laughlin, from Summerville). Both kids and adults will love this show. Guaranteed.
| 1
|
train_1163
|
This movie was released by Roger Corman, so you know that the filmmakers didn't have much money to work with.Although, some viewers may miss the subtleties in this movie because of the very typical "obsessed killer" type marketing approach, there are unique differences about this movie.AMANDA, as played by the obviously talented Justine Priestley, is a complex character. Some people like these movies precisely because the violence can seem random, but here the ramifications of past abuse (dealt with in a realistic but tasteful manner) are what shape the psychosis of AMANDA. Surprisingly, Amanda redeems herself at the end with an act of love, where most of these movies turn into the typical, all out fight to the death and the evil character dies just as evil in the end as to begin with.Some rough edges in this picture, but I have to give it 7 out of 10 stars based on its thoughtfulness and yes, originality as compared to the usual -- especially on a budget.
| 1
|
train_23648
|
This is the prime example of low budget, winning over what would be a good story line. Let's bring back Samaire Armstrong (having seen her work on the O.C. I know she can do better), then find a better script and budget.The special effects were so bad, and mostly badly computer generated, that it almost lost me with the first time the wolf was seen on-screen. And Samaire Armstrong's (alert!)changing into a werewolf was done by reducing her at first to a bad GCIF figure before she even begins to change(Final Fantasy's humans, as well as Pixar's made these laughable, think of the figure as a nude Barbie Doll).The story of was interesting, though the idea of bloodline in werewolves is nothing new. As it also got into the balance between evil, (maybe) not so evil, and the possible end of human-kind should the two lines mate. The subplot of a "book of werewolf linage" which effected some of the other characters in a spell-like manner for a while was effective, but could have been expanded more in explaining what had happened in the past. Bring in a better script and direction, and I'd come back again.
| 0
|
train_201
|
The great and underrated Marion Davies shows her stuff in this late (1928) silent comedy that also showcases the wonderful William Haines. Davies plays a hick from Georgia who crashes Hollywood with help from Haines. They appear in cheap comedies until Marion is "discovered" and becomes a big dramatic star. A great lampoon on Hollywood and its pretentions. Davies & Haines are a wonderful team (too bad they never made a talkie together) and the guest shots from the likes of Charlie Chaplin, Douglas Fairbanks, William S. Hart, John Gilbert, Elinor Glynn, and Marion Davies (you have to see it) are a hoot. A must for any serious film buff or for anyone interested in the still-maligned Marion Davies!
| 1
|
train_24706
|
I don't see much reason to get into this movie in much detail. Sylvester Stallone is once again John Rambo, author and survivor of "A Season in Hell", recruited from prison by his only friend, Major Richard Crenna, to secretly return to Vietnam, take photos of the American prisoners believed to be still held in horrible camps, and return without engaging the enemy.Fat chance. What if he actually DID nothing more than sneak in, take pics, and sneak out? Who would come to see the movie? It's essentially a celebration of Stallone's muscles. Preparing for his mission, we see his well-oiled muscles bulging. (They are oiled and bulging throughout.) There is the ritual strapping on of black leather, ugly guns, and even uglier knives. The black guns are cleaned, assembled with loud clacks, and almost as oiled as Stallone's muscles. The bow is tested and, yes, it has enough poundage to drive a bolt through an enemy's forehead. The knife is sharpened with slick snicks.Stallone and one of his POWs are betrayed by one or two of the suits from Washington, cynical politicians who, you can bet, were never even in a fist fight in grammar school. No guts, you know? Just sit around with their feet on the desk and drink foreign beer.The movie does what it set out to do, but what it set out to do is meretricious. It deliberately cashes in on the myth popular in the mid-1980s that there were uncountable numbers of MIAs quietly kept in wretched camps by the North Vietnamese. The bumper stickers were ubiquitous. (Free Our MIAs.) Why would they keep them? It was never quite reasoned out but perhaps to turn the POWs into a slave labor force -- in a country that has absolutely no resource other than labor. Or maybe for their propaganda value as an instrument to humiliate the United States -- a propaganda weapon that the Vietnamese kept secret from the world.As a captive, Rambo is treated in a Medieval fashion by the North Vietnamese. Dipped to his neck in pig excrement and then hauled out of it by his wrists, his muscles still on display. Then, not content with subhuman Vietnamese, a Russian officer is brought in to play the part of the Gestapo officer -- "Vee haff vays of MAKING you remember." A high-tech type, the Russian uses psychology and electricity, not just pig dump.Rambo returns and declares that he intends to drift aimlessly until "this country loves us as much as we love it," bringing up another myth that Vets returning from Vietnam were uniformly spat upon and cursed, which is why I guess we elected so many to the Congress and appointed others to high-echelon positions. The last three losing presidential candidates were among that despised group. At least Rambo's aimless drifting left room open for a sequel, which arrived apace.The action movies with Schwarzenegger and Willis and others were leavened by wisecracks but Rambo is humorless. It marches dully through it's phantasmal ideological swamp, killing without mercy, barely speaking, barely able to speak. To speak is a sign of weakness.
| 0
|
train_12734
|
This film was choppy, incoherent and contrived. It was also an extremely mean-spirited portrayal of women. I rented it because it was listed as a comedy (that's a stretch), and because the cover said Andie McDowell was acting up a storm in it. She wasn't. I'm a gal, I watched this film with two guys, and we spent an hour afterwards exclaiming over how bad it was.WARNING: PLOT SUMMARY BELOW! RAMPANT SPOILERS!The movie starts out with a fairly hackneyed plot about an older woman who takes up with a younger man, to the severe disapproval of her two jealous single girlfriends. They want her to marry a boring guy their own age who is kind of in love with her. But she's so happy with her oversexed puppy that you're rooting for them to stick it out, and sure enough, she decides to marry the guy. But her harpy girlfriend, aided by the wishy-washy one, sets up a plot to trick our heroine into thinking the guy is cheating on her. It works. She has a fight with him, he runs out of the house and is crushed by a truck (Remember the movie's title?) So now he's dead, two-thirds of the way through the film. And although our heroine is a school headmistress who spends her time watching over girls, she apparently forgot to use birth control and is pregnant.She's already broken off relations with her girlfriends, because they were so unsupportive. Alone and pitiful, she decides to marry the boring guy. Did I mention that the boring guy who kind of loves her is a minister? She had asked him to marry her to the young guy (nice, huh?), but now she tells him she'll marry him, and apparently he has no objections to being dicked around in this fashion. But her girlfriends rescue her at the altar and take her home, where they not-quite-confess that they were mostly responsible for the love of her life getting smushed. She has the kid. In the final scene, they leave it in a crib inside her house while they go out on the porch to drink, smoke and be smug. I kid you not, it's that bad. I left out the part about the cancer red-herring and the harpy's ridiculous lesbian moment.
| 0
|
train_8199
|
After what was considered to be the official Dirty Harry trilogy with The Enforcer(1976) to be the final chapter in the series. Dirty Harry is back, older, more dirtier and grittier than ever since the original 1971 classic.Dirty Harry in the past has killed a psychopath killer, vigilante cops, and Vietnam veteran terrorists. But now he's after a new killer, a killer who wants payback, by gunning down her attackers.Sudden Impact brings a new meaning and more darker tone to Dirty Harry. Callahan is on a new murder case that is circling back to a woman(played by Sondra Locke), who was brutally raped, along with her sister, who is left traumitized. Ten years after, she's out for revenge by gunning down her attackers. At the same though Callahan is on a heat of trouble by his superiors after he provokes a mob boss to a heart attack, of which the mob are hunting him as well. So in order to let the heat die down within the city, Harry is on order to take a vacation on a seaside town, but at the same time the raped victim is in town as well, while hunting her attackers one by one. Harry is on the investigation and finds the killings very similar, as he homes in on the killer's trails.Sudden Impact in my opinion, has to be one of my top 10 revenge films, as well as being the second best Dirty Harry movie yet, far better than both The Enforcer and The Dead Pool combined. Sudden Impact has what the original Dirty Harry had, a dark tone with entertaining value.So do you feel lucky, punk?
| 1
|
train_11652
|
I came across this film by accident when listing all the films I wanted my sister to record for me whilst I was on holiday and I am so glad that I included this one. It deals with issues that most directors shy away from, my only problem with this film is that it was made for TV so I couldn't buy a copy for my friend!It's a touching story about how people with eating disorders don't necessarily shy away from everyone and how many actually have dieting buddies. It brought to my attention that although bulimics can maintain a fairly stable weight, it has more serious consequences on their health that many people are ignorant of.
| 1
|
train_11776
|
Chuck Jones's 'Hare Conditioned' is a fast paced, often hilarious cartoon. Pitting Bugs Bunny against a strange, yellow-skinned apartment store manager who wants to have him stuffed, 'Hare Conditioned' takes full advantage of its multi-purpose setting. The chase takes Bugs and his pursuer through a variety of departments, leading to an inspired gag in which they quickly emerge from various departments wearing whatever clothes are associated with that part of the store. This great gag is trumped, however, by a truly inspired sequence involving elevators in which Bugs, disguised as an elevator boy, tricks the store manager into relentlessly getting on or off elevators at the wrong time. It's a brilliant climactic set piece which unfortunately gives way to a not very funny final gag. By that time, however, 'Hare Conditioned' has made its mark as one of the great chase films, bursting with wild energy. As Bugs was becoming more refined in some of the other cartoons from this period, 'Hare Conditioned' showed that he could still be just as appealing as a more anarchic character.
| 1
|
train_4014
|
Spoiler for anyone who is lucky enough to ever see this film (so not really spoiler after all). Saw this film when it was released and can still remember parts of it. It's all set in a small town in the west or what is left of that town. It more resembles a ghost town with few inhabitants. Among them a couple, where the wife is especially wicked. She lets her man die in the end of the film and leaves the town but has to cross the desert. We never know what happens to her next but just before she left her dying man shoots after her and deliberately does not hit her and instead the water supply. She is not aware of that soon she will be very thirsty. Mark Damon kills a couple of bad guys in a funny manor - but that's another story, which I don't remember too good. The remaining impression of the film was that it was one of the first times I saw a really wicked woman on film, who pretends to be anything but wicked - can't be compared with the witch in 'Snowwhite', who, in comparison is easy to find out. Very tight western with few main characters and still absorbing.
| 1
|
train_6749
|
The charm of Otto Preminger's grandiose, visionary film noir is that it has ambiguous intentions, betraying the gloomy essence of the central character, who is still vexed by living in the shadow of his criminal father. Dana Andrews' driven, vindictive cop is shown as an outsider, irrational and destructive, who maybe can change because he might've found a good woman to look after him. The troubled man reclaims himself with his own tangled impression of rectitude. The distressing mood permanently circuited into the latter half of the story by screenwriter Ben Hecht reverberates in Andrews' tense performance as Preminger saturates the film in a relevantly prosaic substance of style. We don't just see and hear the city at night; we feel it because Preminger lets us see and hear even the most peripheral and distant factors of it.Dana Andrews furnishes a complex character unfolded through his streaks of violence and the hatred that always infests him. As the plot develops, he is secretly entangled in situational snares, yet he is renewed by the outward acts that can be seen in the vintage noir protagonist's visceral facial expressions before he executes them.This reflection of a specific phase in the development of the genre is an engrossing, feral and shady film noir that is set in the double-dealing climate of the underworld, where the hero is so estranged that he is always swelling with rage, and even though he loses his rational resistance, occupational principle, and ethical limits, he's still a good cop. Preminger just winks at telling a social-conscience drama about a corrupted community within the sprawling cityscape, rather keeping the thriller riding on Andrews' shoulders as an existential journey of personal ramifications about a man with an Oedipal fixation who is becoming disconnected though with the ever-shrinking influences of the law on his side and an undying perception of right and wrong.The production companies in the early 1950s pussed out on the social-problem picture, and rather made "low-budget, low-risk thrillers" such as this, apparently in an attempt to evade the conniptions of conservative critics and social busybodies. But there is an expressionistic matter-of-factness to Preminger's inimitable approach. He injects each scene with a sense of everyday drama as a backdrop for the plot. Each supporting character must pull their own weight by doing something interesting, but none of them are cartoons or depressing comic reliefs. To him, every character thinks they're the star, as per the straight-from-the-shoulder self-assertion of Karl Malden as a missionary police inspector and a veteran waitress at a lunch counter. It is those who are the stars---Andrews and Gene Tierney, both anguished by their futile attempts to subdue their emotional intensity---who don't want to be.
| 1
|
train_1652
|
This series got me into Deighton's writing and the genre when I was younger and I love this presentation of the story. I would however disagree with the above comment. From what I have read in the past, it is not Holm's performance that lead Deighton to refuse to have the series released but the butchering that all three books received in the translation to the screen. A great example of this is the rewrite of the boarder crossing that ended Samson's field career. The scene is not in the book, the character who dies in the minefield was never in any of the books and the crossing in Sinker was from East Germany to West Germany, not the Polish frontier. This whole storyline is cloth. The changes in Set similarly damage the integrity of the story. My perspective on Holm's performance was that he portrayed the disorientation of Samson during his wife's defection excellently and I believe comported himself well in portraying the aging field agent desperately trying to bridge the class divide. Samson both pays for his father's idealism and suffers due to its influence on his life. As Clevemore comments, had he gotten himself an education he would have probably been running the department. I think the true loss of performance is due to physical appearance more than anything. Holm is diminutive when compared to the Samson of the book - a physically impressive man capable of using his size to impose a presence.
| 1
|
train_22452
|
Just emailed a friend who's in film school about this flick. Something to avoid when making a film - characters blabbering senseless, overwrought, convoluted monologues on screen that are ultimately trite and unconvincing. If the film is an attempt at social realism, these verbal barrages are so over-the-top that they actually draw attention to the film constructed as film and effectively neutralize that intent. Is it the acting, or the script that is bad, or both?The protagonist is also highly unbelievable for social realism - ravenously consuming canonical English literature and the bible while high or hungover and able to produce such profoundly sophomoric soliloquies while intoxicated? And how is such an unattractive, unwashed and verbally noxious character able to bed most of the women he meets within minutes of encountering them? (I had to applaud when one chick finally threw him out onto the street, despite his whining and self-pitying banter).The viewer encounters pretentious references to Ancient Greek literature, Nostradamus and the Book of Revelations. The impending doom of mankind, in the form of bar codes imprinted on our foreheads or right hands in spooky biblical fashion, is presented to a character who is oh-so-cleverly exposed in his role as a guardian of empty space. This flick is over-scripted and over the top - a melodrama clumsily infused with pedestrian "philosophy" about the meaning of mankind, life, etc. It is trite, overwrought and tedious.There are some very fine English films available with content similar to this film. "Nil by Mouth" is an excellent, far more interesting excursion into the lives of individuals in a similar social milieu. Ditto for "In the Warzone." And although the comparison is not even warranted, check out anything by Peter Greenaway, who far more deftly handles dialogue, wit and absurd characters and situations.
| 0
|
train_14764
|
To preface this review, I must say that I was, I suppose, a little curious about this movie.. However, I probably would not have seen it had I not had my arm slightly twisted.In my opinion, this movie shows just how depraved man can be. In my eyes, the worst thing about this whole Springer phenomenon is not that type of people on the "Jerry Springer Show" act as they do (which in itself is eminently reproachable), but that many people are so curious and excited to watch them and hear about their lives (yes, I suppose that includes me.. to whatever extent it is true). If not glorifying that kind of behavior (as some might say) at the very least we may be subtly corrupting our minds and/or desenstizing ourselves to this type of behavior.But enough soapbox (sort of). Here's the skinny: the movie has an R rating, and while it may deserve only that (I did look away at some scenes, so I'm not completely sure), I feel that an NC-17 (tip of the hat to the other reviewer) might be a little more appropriate for the immense sexual content (a cynic might comment that the movie was just one big excuse to show sex on the big screen). The plot is very bizarre, tying together the stories of an absolutely dysfunctional family and a group of stereotypical blacks upset who will appear on different Springer shows. At the end, the movie leaves one with some resolvement- and Springer rhetoric about the need for us to see the real world (evidently as seen through his show). I agree with him there- it is important to know how the world really is so that we can seek to effect positive change. Having said that, let me just tell you- the world's pretty bad- glance in a newpaper or the news to see that, but let's not shell out good money to support the kind of sensationalistic and perhaps formulaic titallition that Springer seeks to give us.
| 0
|
train_12715
|
I am not so much like Love Sick as I image. Finally the film express sexual relationship of Alex, kik, Sandu their triangle love were full of intenseness, frustration and jealous, at last, Alex waked up and realized that they would not have result and future.Ending up was sad.The director Tudor Giurgiu was in AMC theatre on Sunday 12:00PM on 08/10/06, with us watched the movie together. After the movie he told the audiences that the purposed to create this film which was to express the sexual relationships of Romanian were kind of complicate.On my point of view sexual life is always complicated in everywhere, I don't feel any particular impression and effect from the movie. The love proceeding of Alex and Kiki, and Kiki and her brother Sandu were kind of next door neighborhood story.The two main reasons I don't like this movie are, firstly, the film didn't told us how they started to fall in love? Sounds like after Alex moved into the building which Kiki was living, then two girls are fall in love. It doesn't make sense at all. How a girl would fall in love with another girl instead of a man. Too much fragments, you need to image and connect those stories by your mind. Secondly, The whole film didn't have a scene of Alex and Kik's sexual intercourse, that 's what I was waiting for
. However, it still had some parts were deserved to recommend. The "ear piercing " part was kind of interesting. Alex was willing to suffer the pain of ear piercing to appreciate kik's love. That was a touching scene which gave you a little idea of their love. Also, the scene of they were lying in the soccer field, the conversation express their loves were truthful and passionate.
| 0
|
train_10805
|
I became more emotionally attached to this movie than any other I have ever watched. That may be because I can see the characters as my own grandparents, attempting to make sense of a world at war. The ending and use of Pachabel's Cannon are both amazing.
| 1
|
train_15545
|
Believe it or don't, i have my very own DVD copy of this "movie" which i bought at Walgreens for a great big whole dollar. I'm still not sure if it was a dollar well spent or a dollar foolishly wasted.Pretty amazing set designs and costumes. Apparently much thought and effort went into their making. The set designs are very Mexican in stylization. I liked them a lot. And Santa is impressive. One of the more impressive Santas in moviedom.I'm guessing the original intent and purpose of this movie was to be something uplifting and cheerful for a kids audience. But, somehow, it comes across quite deranged. In fact, i'm left stunned at how deranged it is.Maybe it's the English dubbing that makes it seems so deranged and bizarre. One of the reasons i prefer to experience movies in the original language they were made and the use of English subtitles as dubbing often gives an unintended strangeness. The kid voices were at least dubbed with actual kid voices as opposed to women pretending to be kids which tends to sound very, very weird.Did you know that demons in hell spend their free time dancing around doing ballet in their longjohns? You didn't? Neither did i until i watched this movie. One learns something new everyday.Is this movie actually worth watching? Now, that's a tossup. I can't in good conscience recommend it to anyone as it's quite disturbing in its own bizarre way. Yet, its unintentional bizarreness is what makes it worth watching. You decide what you're going to do. I dunno... for myself, it made me feel uncomfortable seeing demons constantly doing cutesy ballet moves. Now, that's just wrong...
| 0
|
train_3134
|
This was a well written tale of the Making of the Batman Sitcom and actually reunites our heroes on a great quest as well as offers their TV shows history. Unlike the Brady's and Partridge family documentary movies we not only get a look into the past and present lives of Adam and Burt , but also get to see them back in action. Filled with Kapow's and catwomen and the Riddler(s), Batman is back ina well told , tale that not only gives us a satisfactory closing to the Batman series , but fills the modern fan in on all the hollywood tales that about them that haven't been heard in 35 years.Kudos!!!
| 1
|
train_9553
|
I agree with the other comments. I saw this movie years ago. Christopher Plummer is hilarious as a dandy. The ribaldry is unsurpassed. If this comes out on video, I will definitely buy it.
| 1
|
train_12060
|
I really miss the production of good old fashion Spooky films. If Ismail Merchant and James Ivory had been given the task of producing such a film it may have been this one, save for the lack of an internationally known, top drawer cast. This is one of those films that you watch alone on a dark evening with a pizza and some popcorn, and you don't even bother doing the dishes until morning because you just want to hide under the covers. Bravo to Director Herbert Wise, Writers Susan Hill and Nigel Kneale, top Production design by Jon Bunker, Art Direction by John Ralph and an excellent cast for making me shudder and feel so isolated even though I'm living in one of the most populated cities in the world in the beginning of the 21st Century. I gave it a "9" out of "10" because with the production and budget constraints of television, they really pulled of a great show.
| 1
|
train_12054
|
I first saw this movie here in the U.K. in December 1989 when Central TV broadcast it. I still have the video tape, although worn out (over the years many friends and family members have borrowed it and have also been chilled by it!). Anyway, I remember coming home that night, grabbing a Christmas tipple, switching the lights out and watching what was advertised as a 'Christmas Ghost Story'. Even now I remember certain scenes that still send the hairs on my neck standing on-end... I have seen some comments on the movie which say it's not this and not that...I think those people get scared by Friday 13th and the like, stalk and slash rammel, which are laughable. This is a 'traditional' ghost story; there is no big budget action or special effects...no swearing, no blood, no gratuitous sex scenes, no chainsaws or guns etc...So how refreshing!!!! It's atmospheric. IF you like chilling horror, well written, well acted and with a genuinely scary atmosphere, this is the movie for you. I like the original horrors; only last night I saw the original Haunting and that is a superb movie. Very atmospheric again - and so is The Woman In Black. The end of the movie differs to the book, but still very good. I recommend it. Try it...you *will* like it if you like traditional ghost stories...SO...turn off the lights, turn up the fire, lock the doors, grab a drink...and enjoy... :)
| 1
|
train_24027
|
The movie starts out as an ordinary comic-hero-movie. It´s about the boy who is picked on, has no parents and is madly in love with the schools #1 girl. Nothing surprises in the movie, there is nothing that you can´t guess coming in the movie. Toby Mcguire shows us that either he is no good actor or that no actor in the world can save a script like this one. Maybe kids around the age of ten can enjoy the film but it is a bit violent for the youngest. You can´t get away from thinking of movies like X-men, Batman and Spawn. All of those titles are better. I almost walked out the last 20 minutes! One thing that could have been good though was the computeranimation, BUT not even that is anything to put in the christmas-tree! So my recomendation: Don´t see this film even if you get paid for it!
| 0
|
train_729
|
I seriously love this film so much, I never get sick of watching it. The only line I really can't stomach in this is when Riff calls herself a teenage lobotomy but other than that, everything else is perfect. I've never been a fan of PJ Soles and it didn't help to hear that she didn't even know who the Ramones were until she filmed this movie, but I can ignore her snarly little face for the most part. Most people who watch this over and over are fans of the Ramones and really.. that's the only reason I love it so much. I never get tired of seeing DeeDee mess up his Pizza lines or Joey mess up the name of the teacher over and over, haha. One of the best parts of the film is seeing them sing do you want to dance , down the halls of the high school.. I love it. The special edition DVD has a good retrospective, surprisingly PJ Soles isn't on it. Maybe she was working on another project *laugh* Anyway, great film, even better if you're a Ramones fan.
| 1
|
train_13183
|
Lulu (Louise Brooks) works as a typist and is missing something in her life. She enters a Miss France contest against the wishes of her boyfriend Andre (Georges Charlia) and she wins. She sets off for the Miss Europe title leaving her boyfriend behind. She wins again but returns home to Andre because he has asked her to. Once back together, her life becomes mundane again so one night she writes a note to him and leaves to experience the fame that is waiting for her as Miss Europe. Andre follows her.....This film is a silent film with a piano music-track all the way through. It is also sped-up so everything seems fast. Limited dialogue has been added on afterwards and it is very phony. The cast are alright bearing in mind that it is a silent film. The best part of the film comes at the end but the story goes on a little too long. After watching this, I'm not really sure what the big deal was over the looks of Louise Brooks - she has a terrible haircut that makes her face look fat. I don't need to watch it again.
| 0
|
train_1265
|
hi.. I consider Just Cause one of my favorite Sean Connery's movies, it is a tense psychological thriller with excellent performances from the Cast, especially Connery..it also has one of the best lines i have seen in movies, so the dialog is pretty good in this one.. It also has one of the best scenes in movies ever, when Sean interviews Ed Harris's character in prison is just fantastic..i enjoyed this one a lot and i can not recommend this enough, really do not miss this one ! Do not pay attention to the negative reviews stating that the last 30 minutes suck, it was as intense as the rest of the movie, i really find Just Cause a very entertaining movie..
| 1
|
train_24020
|
i didn't enjoy this movie at all.for one,i just found it crude and vulgar,for no reason.i also felt it's misogynistic(against women.)also,the movie really doesn't appear to be about anything,and i didn't find any of the characters likable.really,the there doesn't seem to be any point to it all.maybe i'm missing something,but for me,this movie is pretty much a waste of time,when i could have been doing something more productive and enjoyable.like using my face as a pin cushion.James garner is in this thing,as are C.Thomas Howell and Shirley Jones,and James Cromwell.all are wasted here,and i'm sure this was a low point in each of their respective careers.Jennilee Harrison(from the later years of Three's Company)is also in the movie,and it is nice to see her in a non ditsy role.but other than that,she can't rise above the mediocre script.for me,Tank is a 3/10
| 0
|
train_8277
|
A haunting piece that the discerning horror film fan will fall upon with gratitude. Keep your Freddys and your Jasons -- this film is in the same company as "The Haunting" (the original). Lyrical and truthful, it stays with you long into the night, much like those terrifying CBS Radio Mystery Theatre shows. A smart rent.
| 1
|
train_24654
|
You know how everyone jokes about the acting in porno movies? Well if you've always found the plot line of a porn to captivate your interest, then this movie is for you. It truly was like a porn without the sex. Or if that analogy is not to your liking, imagine you and your drunk roommate found a movie camera abandoned on a park bench. This is the movie that you would make. -Horrible acting -bad camera work -Music done on a casio keyboard This movie has it all, and more. For those who are masochists in the crowd, this is a premiere piece for your collection. All I can figure is that the only people to submit reviews for this dripping pile of movie, were people who 'starred' in it. Their movie career is over before it started.
| 0
|
train_24750
|
Upon viewing Tobe Hooper's gem, Crocodile, in 2000, I developed a great interest in the college/crocodile niche of the exploitation/monster genre. I look forward to a wayward producer to follow up with several sequels to these delightful bonbons of camp goodness. If only Ed Wood could bring his subtle sense of flair and dignity to these remarkable scripts. With Ed writing the scripts, and a room full of monkees creating crocodile special effects on a computer, all we'd need would be a cast of crocky fodder with Russ Meyer breasts and Ren Hoek pectoral implants.While Tobe Hooper's crocky opus referenced his own movies, Blood Surf chose to dish out a bunch of aging themes from the chum bucket of other movies. See if you can look past the Revenge of the Nerds sequel sets to find the allusions/homages?/rip-offs to Jaws, Temple of Doom, Indiana Jones' Last Crusade, The Convent, Godzilla 2000, and any James Bond movie. Also, try to find the ready-for-tv fade where the editor gave up on making sense of the stock.I was disappointed the crock didn't get to try out its sotto voce tenor with a soliloquy on environmentalism...or crocky appreciation, but the quasi-Captain Ahab of the story does get his tour de force speach. Perhaps, in the coming years, we'll see a crock galloping off after a shootout into a golden sunset. Or hopefully, a monkey will flush a crocky down the toilet of an international space station for midgets and enjoy the exploitative waltz of zero-G monkey/midget/crocodile bloodshed.All-in-all, the lack of a whammy bar in the surf music irked me.
| 0
|
train_9485
|
I saw this film for the very first time several years ago - and was hooked up in an instant. It is great and much better than J. F. K. cause you always have to think 'Can it happen to me? Can I become a murderer?' You cannot turn of the TV or your VCR without thinking about the plot and the end, which you should'nt miss under any circumstances.
| 1
|
train_15576
|
This movie should not be viewed unless you are trying to kill yourself. I think this movie could actually cause severe brain damage. The main characters are the whiny non-hero Kevin, Amy, his bratty, ungodly conservative girlfriend, Kyle, a dork in red shorts who enjoys phone sex, Daphne, a scrawny, horny girl who is supposed to be "cool" and has no sense of how to dress, and her oversexed boyfriend Nick, an army recruit who can make an innuendo out of anything. No, I'm not a pervert, that's REALLY how the movie goes. The movie itself is an over-sexed rip-off of 1986's Gremlins, only you'll never find a trace of Gizmo anywhere. No, these Hobgoblins, unleashed by Wimpy Man (I'm sorry, Kevin), make someone's wildest dreams come true, and then kill the victims. Yes, you guessed it-Eventually, they wind up in a strip club, where the nerdy Amy's greatest dream is revealed-She wants to be a stripper! Look, I watched this flick via MST3K, and even with Mike Nelson, Tom Servo, and Crow T. Robot making a laughing-stock out of this cinematic trainwreck and it still made me bleed from both eyes. Not really, but I wish I had. I'm not giving you anymore plot, because reliving it gives me this great urge to drive a pitchfork through my brain. Besides, it's not like there's a plot worth mentioning. They should put a Surgeon's General Warning on this film.
| 0
|
train_8228
|
it's hard to tell you more about this film without spoiling it. I enjoyed it because I wasn't expecting what I was seeing, but an ordinary sex-drama so.... It's a pscyho-sexual thriller, in which nothing is what it seems. It features Emmanuelle Seigner, no stranger to the genre (and to nudity) in which her husband, Polanski, had directed her. And a creepy performance (did I say creepy/yes CREEPY) from Toreton (Bernard Tavernier's actor). It looks like a Pascal Bruckner meets Roman Polanski (better than Bitter Moon), like a Chabrol gone astray or Clouzot thriller (I have seen someone mentioning Les Diaboliques), but closer to Georges Franju's Les Yeux sans Visage (Eyes without a face, the godfather of Dr. Phibes and more). A gem ! I am just afraid they will blow this into a Hollywood remake like they did with Nighwatch and The Vanishing.
| 1
|
train_19263
|
God, what an awful thing ! Oliver Stone probably wanted to experiment or something (see the terrible use of music and pictures here) but what for really ? The whole thing behind "Natural born killers" seems to be a "clever" look at how medias can turn into complete trash but unfortunately the movie turns into trash itself. Please Mr. Stone, next time you want to criticize the fascism of tv shows using violence to get high rates, avoid doing the same with your movie ! Michael Haneke said quite cleverly about this film that it was denouncing media fascism with fascist cinematographic ways. How true... Only he forgot to tell us about the massive headache you get after sitting through this overlong load of crap !
| 0
|
train_2529
|
"The Invisible Ray" is part science fiction and part horror. It was also the third of seven Karloff/Lugosi features. In this entry the dominant role goes to Boris Karloff.Through specially designed astronomical equipment, Dr. Janos Rukh (Karloff) demonstrates to colleagues Dr. Felix Benet (Bela Lugosi), Sir Frances Stevens (Walter Kingsford), his wife Lady Stevens (Beulah Bondi) and their nephew Ronald Drake (Frank Lawton), that a meteorite containing a powerful element, landed on the African continent many millions of years in the past. Rukh impresses his guests who invite him to accompany them on an expedition to Africa to find the mysterious element.Rukh goes off on his own and discovers the place where the meteorite landed and the element which he names "Radium X". Due to Rukh's long absences, his comely young wife Diana (Frances Drake) becomes attracted to Drake and the two fall in love. Meanwhile Rukh becomes contaminated by Radium X to the point that anyone he touches will die instantly. The contamination causes his skin to emit a bright glow in the dark.Rukh goes to Benet for help. Benet devises an antidote which if taken on a daily basis, will provide temporary immunity to the element. Unfortuneatly, the deadly element also affects Rukh's brain, slowly turning him into a vindictive murderer.While Rukh is continuing his work, Sir Frances takes news of the discovery back to France. Diana and Ronald accompany him. When Benet informs him of this action, Rukh accuses the party of betraying him and his discovery and secretly plans his revenge. When he returns to France he learns of the healing power of Radium X as he cures his mother's (Violet Kemble Cooper) blindness and of Benet's work in curing the maladies of his patients.But Rukh's madness intensifies. First he murders an innocent man whom is identified as Rukh. Upon hearing of Rukh's apparent demise, Diana and Ronald marry. This angers Rukh and he begins to exact his revenge on the five other members of the expedition. One night he is lured into a trap set by Benet and...........Karloff is excellent in the lead role moving from a happily married ambitious scientist to a raving maniac. Lugosi has a straight role for once and does what he can with the limited part.At 79 minutes this film was the second longest of the six Karloff/Lugosi collaborations. Karloff's film all the way.
| 1
|
train_23951
|
Alright, friends, a serious movie buff is expected to watch all kinds of movie, the bad as well as the good, and this movie put me to the test. I won't mince words. This movie was bad. The story was bad. The acting was bad. The always wonderful Sissy Spacek did nothing to make this movie better. Indeed I asked myself why did I even bother to see this rotten trashy movie? Why did I waste my time and money on something that I suspected would be bad? The answer is, of course, that I am a movie buff and therefore cannot avoid what otherwise should be avoided. I will not waste your time explaining what exactly was wrong with this amateurish movie, except to say that the quality of the acting was, to put it politely, subpaar. A serious movie buff may want to take on the responsibility of watching this movie. Otherwise. stay home, don't waste your time, read a book, take take of chores or have yourself a good sandwich.
| 0
|
train_3585
|
Excellent story about teenagers, leaders, high school football "stars". How far will you go to protect your friends? Lie, kill? How much can You lose if you stud by an innocent girl? Can love beat the odds? Can you defeat narrow-minded small town people? When your friend scores and you "lose", will you do everything in your power to make her pay for it, or will you be a man about it, and respect her right to chose? Will you rape her and show it as your victory over a "problem" girl? Can you stand by the one who's only sin is to have an opinion of her own, to be able to make her own decisions, to chose for herself? It made me think twice before giving my judgment about who was right and who was wrong, but one is for sure - very disturbing movie and theme in general. Thumb up!
| 1
|
train_22866
|
These were over 80 minutes of semi unexpected boredom. First, I was wondering how it is possible to produce something like that. Then, reaching 70th minute I was convincing myself that it's only a few more minutes, and I lasted to the very end which I'm kinda proud of as I consider watching this movie as a great test for human's patience and crap tolerance. Was it worth watching at all? Well, as I wrote above, if you want to test yourself, give it a try and if you're strong willed enough, you may even last to the end... The movie lacks coherence and characters seem to have no common sense at all. All happenings in the movie, you can be sure you saw somewhere before, and they seem to be put in this movie just to fill the film reel.
| 0
|
train_9803
|
This Batman movie isn't quite as good as Batman mask of The Phantasm and Batman and Mr. Freeze subzero But it is still a good installment to the Batman cartoons I say it is equally good as Batman Beyond The Movie. This movie is good for all the same reasons The storyline is good not quite as good as the other one's but still pretty good it has lots of action in it The Cartoon effects are good The voice of actors are really good such as Kevin Conroy as Batman/ Bruce Wayne, Tara Strong as Barbra Gordon, Efrem Zimbalist Jr., Eli Marienthal as Robin. The villains are good such as Kyra Sedgwick as Batwoman, David Ogden Stiers as The Pequin, Hector Elizondo as Bane. So I am sure you will not be disappointed with batman Mystery of The Batwomen. So make sure that you rent or buy batman Mystery of The Batwoman the movie because it is really good.Overall score: ******* out of ********** *** out of *****
| 1
|
train_3978
|
I have had the pleasure of reading Martin Torgoff's book "Can't Find My Way Home" which is chock full of info on the drug culture of America, spanning the years 1945-2000. This guy knows his stuff!! I found him to be an excellent spokesperson for this documentary. I particularly enjoyed watching the film clips from the hippie era, and the 70's stoner culture. The soundtrack was excellent. Whoever compiled it definitely was in touch with the tunes of each era. Hopefully they will package them and sell them as a CD set. I would highly recommend this to anyone interested in how the 1960's experiments with LSD forever changed American culture as we know it. One thing that was missing was any mention of George Jung (played by Johnny Depp in the movie "Blow"), who was supposedly responsible for much of the marijuana and cocaine coming into this country in the 60's-80's.
| 1
|
train_3750
|
This is a great short. i think every voice is done by jason steele. (you can only just barely tell if you've heard his normal voice though, so don't worry about them sounding the same. they don't.) its about 15 minutes long.edward the spatula is fighting the war against spoons and he meets some weird people. in fact, everyone he knows seem pretty crazy. "edward!" "general peterson, we have to get you to a medical unit!" "no, I'm not gonna make it edward." "dont talk like that, I'm sure you'll be fine." "im a goner edward, and you know it. before i go-" "yes?" "can i just have... one kiss?" "umm, no." "come on, just one, small, peck on the lips?" "im walking away now sir."there's gonna be movie pretty soon. the date for that is in September, but its probably gonna get pushed back.
| 1
|
train_6641
|
On the 28th of December, 1895, in the Grand Café in Paris, film history was writing itself while Louis Lumière showed his short films, all single shots, to a paying audience. 'La Sortie des Usines Lumière' was the first film to be played and I wish I was there, not only to see the film, but also the reactions of the audience.We start with closed doors of the Lumière factory. Apparently, since the image seems a photograph, people thought they were just going to see a slide show, not something they were hoping for. But then the doors open and people are streaming out, heading home. First a lot of women, then some men, and one man on a bike with a big dog. When they are all out the doors close again.Whether this is the first film or not (some say 'L'Arrivée d'un Train à la Ciotat' was the first film Lumière recorded), it is an impressive piece of early cinema. Being bored by this is close to impossible for multiple reasons. One simple reason: it is only fifty seconds long. But also for people who normally only like the special effect films there must be something interesting here; you don't get to see historical things like this every day.
| 1
|
train_1751
|
The 40 Year Old Virgin, is about Andy Stitzer, a forty year old man who works in an electronic store and doesn't have much of a social life and is very awkward around women. Some of his co-workers at the store invite him out one night and they discover that Andy, is still a virgin so they plan to help him lose his virginity. One day in the store Andy, meets a woman named Trish, who gives him her phone number and eventually Andy, works up enough courage to go on a date with her and they start to really like each other but Andy, is still very awkward when it comes to sex and he is going to have to tell this to Trish, much to his embarrassment if he can actually get up enough courage to tell her before things get awkward. The 40 Year Old Virgin, has good direction, a good script, good comedic performances by the whole cast, good cinematography and good film editing. The film stars and is co-written by Steve Carell, who does a very good comedic breakthrough performance and his writing for the film is very good too. I was very pleasantly surprised with this film. It is sweet, funny, entertaining, fun, enjoyable, clever, good natured and a good time. This film is just as good as this year's Wedding Crashers, and both films are two of the best comedies I have seen in awhile. The 40 Year Old Virgin, really showcases a lot of talent and it is put to good use and it works as a comedy and a romance and it is sweet and a lot of fun. One of the biggest surprises and one of the best comedies of the year.
| 1
|
train_20428
|
Actually, the movie is neither horror nor Sci-Fi. With a very strong Christian religious theme, this movie delivers minimal content and no suspense. Second-tier actors do half-decent jobs of reading their boring roles. The only good performance is by Sydney Penny who plays a role of a mother of ... I won't spoil the movie, it's either Christ or Anti-Christ. Avoid watching this movie unless you a Christian religious fanatic obsessed with apocalypse.Being a non-Christian, I had to force myself to watch this movie just because I wanted to write this review. It's a pity that Sci-Fi channel had to air this movie at the peak evening time.
| 0
|
train_19194
|
I actually had hopes for this movie since I've seen Kari in a few other things and think she has some talent. Alas, this dud is a case study in what not to do in a screenplay. Completely undefined characters without a shred of likeability, and no plot whatsoever. Is it a road/buddy/comedy/thriller/romance/drama? The filmmakers don't have a clue, and neither do we.
| 0
|
train_20074
|
But it does have some good action and a plot that is somewhat interesting. Nevsky acts like a body builder and he isn't all that attractive, in fact, IMO, he is UGLY. ( his acting skills lack everything! ) Sascha is played very well by Joanna Pacula, but she needed more lines than she was given, her character needed to be developed. There are way too many men in this story, there is zero romance, too much action, and way too dumb of an ending. It is very violent. I did however love the scenery, this movie takes you all over the world, and that is a bonus. I also liked how it had some stuff about the mafia in it, not too much or too little, but enough that it got my attention. The actors needed to be more handsome...The biggest problem I had was that Nevsky was just too normal, not sexy enough. I think for most guys, Sascha will be hot enough, but for us ladies that are fans of action, Nevsky just doesn't cut it. Overall, this movie was fine, I didn't love it nor did I hate it, just found it to be another normal action flick.
| 0
|
train_18796
|
This film looked interesting; I'd read the book a number of years ago and it informed me that the feature followed the plot outline pretty tightly.Started watching it and almost from the outset it failed to live up to expectations. In fact, I didn't bother watching the whole thing... utter drivel - bad performances, bad acting and instantly dislikeable characters - that was the point of the film, I guess.Watching this film left a bad taste in the mouth and put me on a downer for the remainder of my weekend.Do not bother with this feature.
| 0
|
train_14462
|
The only scary thing about this movie is the thought that whoever made it might make a sequel.From start to finish "The Tooth Fairy" was just downright terrible. It seemed like a badly-acted children's movie which got confused, with a "Wizard of Oz" witch melting and happy kiddies ending combined with some bad gore effects and swearing.Half of the cast seem completely unnecessary except for conveniently being there to get murdered in some fashion. The sister of the two brothers, Cherise the aura reader and Mrs. McDonald have entirely no point in the film - they could have included them in the main plot for some interesting side stories but apparently couldn't be bothered. The people watching the film know the characters are there for some bloody death scene but come on, at least TRY and have a slight plot for them. The story in general is weak with erratic behavior from the characters that makes you wish they all get eaten by the witch.Add the weak plot and the weak acting together (the children are particularly wooden) and the movie ends up a complete failure. If only MST3K could have had a go at this one ...
| 0
|
train_514
|
Surely one of the best British films ever made, if not one of the best films ever made anywhere. Script, cinematography, direction and acting in a class on their own. This film works on so many levels. So why is it completely unavailable on tape, DVD. Never shown on TV? Why is it hidden away when it is regularly shown at the National Film Theatre in London to packed houses?
| 1
|
train_15322
|
OMG this is one of the worst films iv ever seen and iv seen a lot I'm a Film student. I don't understand why Angelina Jolie would be in this movie? Did she need the money that badly? I love AJ and have seen almost everything shes ever been in so i watched this 2 tick another one off. It was SOO bad! not even good bad, just bad bad. It had 1 or 2 funny little moments but all in all it was bad n a waste of 101 minutes. I cant even say AJ looked good in it because well she didn't. The plot is predictable unless you r expecting a re-telling of Romeo and Juliet then its not. All round disappointing. Maybe if your 12 this could be a good film otherwise I really don't recommend it.
| 0
|
train_21608
|
This so-called prequel is just a badly made remake to to a better version of Dangerous Liasons. The plots are identical as is most of the script. I loved the book its based off of, and I loved the first movie, but I'm not even going to bother with the 3rd movie. The pointless banter between the two main characters in the prequel was completely predictable and unoriginal, and...I just can't stress how bad the movie was. If you don't want to take my word for it, just watch it, and you'll see what I mean. If you've read a review that says that 'If you likes the first one, you'll like the second one' the only reason that is is because IT IS THE EXACT SAME MOVIE! Although the plot is not even as good. They took so many lines from the first movie, Its hard to tell which movie you're watching.
| 0
|
train_10108
|
An absolute classic !! The direction is flawless , the acting is just superb. Words fall short for this great work. The most definitive movie on Mumbai Police. This movie has stood the test of times.Om Puri gives a stellar performance, Smita Patil no less. All the actors have done their best and the movie races on thrilling you at every moment. This movie shakes your whole being badly and forces you to rethink about many issues that confront our society.This is the story of a cop (Om Puri ) who starts out in his career as a honest man but ultimately degenerates into a killer. The first attempt in Bollywood to get behind the scenes and expose the depressing truth about Mumbai cops. Kudos to Nihalani !! After this movie a slew of Bollywood movies got released that exposed the criminal-politician-police nexus. Thus this movie was truly a trend setter. This trend dominated the Hindi movie scene for more than a decade. This movie was a moderate box office hit. A must-see for discerning movie fans.
| 1
|
train_12656
|
Zu Warriors most definitely should've been an animated series because as a movie it's like watching an old anime on acid.The movie just starts out of nowhere and people just fly around fighting with metal wings and other stupid weapons until this princess sacrifices herself for her lover on a cloud or something.Whether this princess is a god or an angel is beyond me but soon enough this flying wind bad guy comes in and kills her while the guy with the razor wings fights some other mystical God /Demon/Wizard thing.The plot line is either not there or extremely hard to follow you need to be insanely intelligent to get this movie.The plot soon follows this Chinese mortal who is called upon by this god to fight the evil flying,princess killing bad guy and soon we have a very badly choreographed Uwe Boll like fight scene complete with terrible martial arts on a mountain or something.Even the visuals are weird some might say they are stunning and colorful but i'm going to say they are blurry and acid trip like (yes that's a word!).I watched it both dubbed and with subtitles and both were equally bad and hard to understand....who am i kidding i didn't understand it at all.It felt like i was watching episode 30 of some 1980's anime and completely missed how the story began or like i started reading a comic series of 5 at number 4 because i had no clue how this thing started where it was going or how it would end i was lost the entire time.I can honestly say this was one of the worst film experiences ever it was like watching Inu-Yasha at episode 134 drunk...yeah that's right you don't know what the hell is going on.Don't waste your brain trying to figure this out.
| 0
|
train_3972
|
In the tradition of G-Men, The House On 92nd Street, The Street With No Name, now comes The FBI Story one of those carefully supervised films that showed the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the best possible light. While it's 48 year director J. Edgar Hoover was alive, it would be showed in no other kind of light.The book by Don Whitehead that this film is based on is a straight forward history of the bureau from it's founding in 1907 until roughly the time the film The FBI Story came out. It's important sometimes to remember there WAS an FBI before J. Edgar Hoover headed it. Some of that time is covered in the film as well.But Warner Brothers was not making a documentary so to give the FBI flesh and blood the fictional character of John 'Chip' Hardesty was created. Hardesty as played by James Stewart is a career FBI man who graduated law school and rather than go in practice took a job with the bureau in the early twenties.In real life the Bureau was headed by William J. Burns of the Burns Private Detective Agency. It was in fact a grossly political operation then as is showed in the film. Burns was on the periphery of the scandals of the Harding administration. When Hoover was appointed in 1924 to bring professional law enforcement techniques and rigorous standards of competence in, he did just that. Through the Hardesty family which is Stewart and wife Vera Miles we see the history of the FBI unfold. In addition we see a lot of their personal family history which is completely integrated into the FBI's story itself. Stewart and Miles are most assuredly an all American couple. We follow the FBI through some of the cases Stewart is involved with, arresting Ku Klux Klan members, a plot to murder oil rich Indians, bringing down the notorious criminals of the thirties, their involvement with apprehending Nazi sympathizers in World War II and against Communist espionage in the Cold War.There is a kind of prologue portion where Stewart tells a class at the FBI Academy before going into the history of the bureau as it intertwines with his own. That involves a bomb placed on an airline by a son who purchased a lot of life insurance on his mother before the flight. Nick Adams will give you the creeps as the perpetrator and the story is sadly relevant today.Of course if The FBI Story were written and produced today it would reflect something different and not so all American. Still the FBI does have a story to tell and it is by no means a negative one.The FBI Story is not one of Jimmy Stewart's best films, but it's the first one I ever saw with my favorite actor in it so it has a special fondness for me. If the whole FBI were made up Jimmy Stewarts, I'd feel a lot better about it. There's also a good performance by Murray Hamilton as his friend and fellow agent who is killed in a shootout with Baby Face Nelson.Vera Miles didn't just marry Stewart, she in fact married the FBI as the film demonstrates. It's dated mostly, but still has a good and interesting story to tell.
| 1
|
train_890
|
This is one excellent Sammo Hung movie. Actually, this is a great piece of Hong Kong action cinema. The story tells the story of pedicab drivers in Macao looking for love and getting mixed up w/ a vicious pimp. The performances are excellent and the characters are all likable and well-defined. The story is involving and has enough romance, drama, comedy, and suspense to keep one watching between fight scenes. Sammo Hung proves here that he's probably the best fight choreographer in the business. The action is simply amazing, esp. the fight w/ Lau Kar Leung and the finale. Billy Chow and Sammo Hung are amazing. A must see for any fan of action.
| 1
|
train_8002
|
I have seen Maslin Beach a couple of times - both on free to air TV in Brisbane. I won't go into whether it is good, bad or otherwise as others have well and truly covered this.I will say that it is so Australian. Only in Australia can we have a film about relationships among people spending the day as naked as the day they were born, and to view it on free commercial television.I have a friend from the US who is constantly amazed at what we put on our free TV compared to her home country. Sex and the CIty and Huff are just too examples.Despite our Government trying to turn us into the 51st US State, it is good to know at least some things remain truly Aussie
| 1
|
train_22091
|
If you've read the original novel, as I did, you will probably hate this thing.The film version of _Absolute Beginners_ is a nightmarish conglomerate of 1980s anachronisms attempting to create a "period piece" set in the late 1950s and failing to re-create or even pay homage to that period -- the US monstrosity of _Dirty Dancing_ does similar to 1963, except that film proved financially successful despite having equally amateurish screen writing. In addition to suffering from "looking too 1980s", the characters have been changed, re-arranged, and downplayed to the point that the only characteristics they have in common with those of the novel are the slightest superficial looks and, of course, their names: Suze is transformed from the narrator's flighty ex-girlfriend and promiscuous negrophile who willingly plans to marry a closeted old queen for money (at her own admittance in the first few pages) into a hapless and naive "Eve"-archetype seduced by fame and glamour, exploited and somehow scammed into a sham marriage by her boss, who surprisingly wasn't given a Van Dyke and pointy hairstyle. She and the narrator, re-named "Colin" (after the book's author, Colin MacInnes) for the film, are also in a relationship.Big Jill's character, a lesbian seemingly butch yet "fop like" in her mid-20s who acts as pimp to a cadre of young and bubble-headed lesbians, and one of the narrator's closest friends, dispensing frank wisdom to the narrator, is reduced to a sort of "named extra" with only a few throw-away lines, and tonnes of comical outfits.The Fabulous Hoplite, a gay young man and another close friend of the narrator in the novel, is also reduced to the point of being pointless in the film, camped-up and all but ignored.The narrator's father in the novel is a sort of sad minor character but in the film, he's played to come off as optimistic and oddly spirited despite the squalid neighbourhood, and the disarray of his marriage to the narrator's mum seems, for all practical purposes, ignored.In its favour, the music (for what it is) is well-composed, and you have to give the production and writing crews credit for actually taking a line from the book ("...some days, they'll write musicals about the 1950s...") as their inspiration to write a musical, but in the world of bad camped-up musicals, this is among the most poorly executed in the bunch. Unlike _Shock Treatment_ or _Starstruck_ crucial plot elements are treated as afterthoughts. Unlike _The Apple_, there is a choppy and uneven flow between musical numbers and spoken dialogue.You really can't blame it's "too 1980s" feel on the fact that it was created in the 1980s. The film version of _Annie_ released in 1981, pays a wonderfully well-executed tribute to the look and feel of New York City in the 1930s, and _Napolean Dynamite_ manages to capture a gritty sort of look and feel of the 1980s despite being made on a low budget in 2003 (though it's not explicitly set in the 1980s, those who lived through the decade cannot deny that the film "feels very 1980s"). Obviously, it was _possible_ to make something good out of this, especially considering the iconic status that the source novel has in the UK, but it fails most apparently in the look and feel, and also in its treatment of the source material, which is downright disrespectful.Perhaps if you haven't read and have no intentions of reading the novel, you could enjoy this campy 1980s anachronism giving a shameful parody of late-1950s Soho London's modernist jazz set. I can definitely see what the writing team were attempting, but they definitely could have done better. With Boy George as a household name and mixed-race musicians and bands on the charts in 1986 UK, they definitely did _not_ need to bowdlerise the characters in the ways that they ended up doing. In fact, I'd go so far as saying that the writers wound up doing what both the book and film criticised harshly -- it ended up having a bunch of adults cranking out crap and treating its targeted teen-aged audience like two-bit idiots to make a quick buck off of.
| 0
|
train_12690
|
I always felt that a good film should have a plot. This particular film was missing one, and I feel that it would have been more effective with a plot. This was made even worse by the fact that it seemed to go on forever; I was anxious for it to finally end. However, I just noticed that it was only 123 minutes long; it felt like four hours. Not only was there no plot but the film also lacked a notable conflict. It's not the worst movie I've seen, but I used to say that it was until I saw "The Fast And The Furious". So, don't think this review of mine is from someone who needs nothing but action. I actually hate most action films out today; it's just that this film is all the way on the other side of the spectrum. Not much really happens in this movie. However, the scenery and costumes were nice.
| 0
|
train_22487
|
Turgid dialogue, feeble characterization - Harvey Keitel a judge? He plays more like an off-duty hitman - and a tension-free plot conspire to make one of the unfunniest films of all time. You feel sorry for the cast as they try to extract comedy from a dire and lifeless script. Avoid!
| 0
|
train_3756
|
Made only ten years after the actual events, and set in the Bunker under the Reichstag, Pabst's film is wholly gripping. It reeks of sulfurous death awaiting the perpetrators of world war. Haven't seen this in over three decades, but it remains strong in my visual and emotional memory. The characters seem to be waiting to be walled up in their cave. Searing bit of dialog between two Generals: "Does God exist?" "If He did, we wouldn't." Shame this is not more readily available for exhibition or purchase because it would be interesting to view and compare this film with the documentary about Traudl Junge, "Im Toten Winkel" {aka "Blind Spot: Hitler's Secretary") and "Downfall" with Bruno Ganz.
| 1
|
train_4989
|
This is very dated, but that's part of the charm with this 1933 movie. You can say the same for most Pre-Code films; they're just different, and usually in an interesting way.It was the short running time, the great acting of Spencer Tracy and the beautiful face and sweetness of Loretta Young's character which kept me watching and enjoying this stagy-but-intriguing film.You'd be hard-pressed to find a nicer girl than "Trinna," played by the 20-year-old Young who was already into making her 50th movie! (She started acting as a small child. That, and the fact they made movies quickly back in the old days.) The camera, although in soft focus throughout much of the film, zoomed in on Loretta's face and eyes many times and I was mesmerized by her beauty.Playing a crotchety man with a cynical outlook on life, Tracy's "Bill" slowly transformed into a loving man, thanks to Trinna. Spencer delivered his lines here with such naturalness that you hardly knew he was acting.Although they have small roles, supporting actors Walter Connolly, Marjorie Rambeau, Arthur Hohl and Glenda Farrell leave lasting impressions long after viewing this 75-minute film. I was particularly fascinated with Connolly's role as the minister/father figure of the camp.The story is a little far-fetched but - hey - that's the movies. This story is about two lonely Great Depression victims trying to survive in a "Hooverville"-type camp and it winds up to be a very touching tale.
| 1
|
train_7096
|
I had the privilege of seeing this film at a preview screening years ago, and outside the theater I was confronted by a camera crew from a local TV station looking for comments on the film. At the time, the only words that escaped my mouth were "Awesome. Just awesome." I like to think I can articulate myself a little better than that, but at the time I was somewhat incapable of doing so.The story is intriguing and thought provoking, and the acting is first rate from all the principals. This film was the first one that Terry Gilliam directed that he didn't have a hand in the writing credit for. Back with Universal after his long, arduous battle with them over "Brazil", Terry had achieved what he wanted most; the "final cut". Terry is a master craftsman, and each shot is like a beautifully conceived painting that has been constructed carefully with determination and conviction. It is only justice that such an individual should be unfettered in his attempts to convey a concept. Unfortunately, limitations still exist in such arrangements.The Universal Collector's Edition DVD of this film is simply amazing, although most of the bonus features aren't listed on the box. It contains among other things, a director/producer audio commentary and an informative and extremely interesting 90 minute documentary on the making of the film called "The Hamster Factor and Other Tales of 12 Monkeys". It tells of some of the creative pitfalls in filmmaking, including a test of mettle when preview screenings tested poorly, striking the team with feelings of self-doubt and despair. Fortunately, for all of us, they decided to change very little about the film and released it to an enormous success.
| 1
|
train_23534
|
i think that new york is a big fake, i mean her whole guidelines of this show is stupid. i enjoyed flavor fl av more better, she acts like a slut, and a hoe put together. her mother is out of this world, i think she is the devils daughter. i mean what does she think she is doing these men already have girls and i believe once you have been with her you will be to ashamed to go back to your girl. she is nasty, spoiled and a big fat fake.the show is very interesting to watch, how much money is she getting to do this awful show, and whats up with her mother,i thought her and new york did not get along, but now it seems as though she is just as fake as her crazy daughter.and where is the so called husband, he is no where to be found,i would not to be with them either.
| 0
|
train_22643
|
FLIGHT OF FURY takes the mantle of being the very WORST Steven Seagal flick I've ever seen...Up to now.It's a dreadful bore with no action scenes of any interest, Seagal isn't really trying in this - he's fat and his voice is dubbed once more.The Co-stars fare no better, being a rather sorry load of 3rd raters.The Direction by Keusch is very poor and it comes as no surprise that he's also responsible for another couple of Seagal stinkers (SHADOW MAN & ATTACK FORCE) The screenplay Co-written by Seagal himself is laughably inept.According to IMDb $12M was spent on this boring load of old tosh - If these figures are correct I sense a big tax fiddle as nowhere near that amount was spent.FLIGHT OF FURY is actually a shot for shot remake of the Michael Dudikoff flick BLACK THUNDER - which has to be better than this tripe.This has NO redeeming qualities whatsoever,Give it a MISS! 1/2 * out of *****
| 0
|
train_678
|
Peter Weir's first international success, THE LAST WAVE is a mainly effective chiller with a fascinating back story based on Aboriginal myth. Richard Chamberlain gives a good performance as a defense lawyer whose life becomes increasingly unmoored from reality as he delves deeper into a murder case involving Aboriginal tribal rivalries. David Gulpilil plays one of the suspects, who does his best to guide Chamberlin thru the realm of 'Dreamtime', an alternate reality/timeline central to native Australian history and tribal custom. Heavy on atmosphere, deliberately ambiguous in plotting, the film builds to an unsettling finale which is somewhat diminished by poor effects, probably due to budgetary limitations. Nevertheless an intriguing film whose overall impression of mystery and dread lurking just below the surface of what we perceive as 'reality' will stay with you.
| 1
|
train_14048
|
Lorne Michaels once again proves that he has absolutely no business producing movies.You'd think that after such dismal flicks "Superstar", "Night at the Roxbury", and "Coneheads", he'd start to get the notion that maybe he doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to movies (and many would argue that he doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to television, as well). Trying to make feature films out of skits that wore out their welcome the third time the were done on SNL makes no sense.I personally like Tim Meadows, and think that he would be great in the right movie. It's a shame to see a talented guy wasted in a film that features unfunny after unfunny situation, and caps it all with a dreadfully bad song and dance scene. Any laughs here will be because the movie is so bad, not because it's funny.Oh well, at least we can be thankful that there are many other tired SNL characters who will never have films done about them. It's just too bad that this one made it to the big screen.
| 0
|
train_361
|
Like I said at the top, four stars just aren't enough. It's one of the best films I've ever seen in my almost 17 years of life. For the people that don't really like it or understand it, you must not have a real appreciation for art or you might have a short attention span.Even if I haven't seen all his films yet, I'd have to say that this is Spielberg at his peak. It's pretty sad to see that movies as great as "The Color Purple" don't come along too often 'cause I think all of us are in desperate need of first-class motion picture entertainment in these hard times.Movies like this are more than just movies; they're pieces of art that need to be appreciated more.The idea that it was nominated for 11 Oscars (even Best Picture of the Year) and didn't get one trophy is a sign of how blind and stupid Hollywood can be sometimes. Spielberg wasn't even nominated for Best Director! It should have swept the Oscars that year.The film clearly shows you how unfair life is for some people.If only movies were still this good....
| 1
|
train_13538
|
Raising victor Vargas is just a bad film. No amount of denial or ad-dollar supported publicity with change this sad fact.Maybe Peter Sollett saw he didn't have the money to do the movie he wanted to make and decided to take the easy way out by making a bad film that cynically apes the tenets of current "edgy film-making". Maybe he just doesn't know any better. It's hard to tell.What's not hard to tell is the result. Except for a few viewers who will intellectualize the bad film-making into an attempt at pseudo-realism, few will enjoy it.I know I didn't.Do yourselves a favor and pass on this film.
| 0
|
train_24470
|
...for the Lt to have chosen this one. First, the film wasn't horrible, it was just Hollywood. Worst case I-need-this-to-happen-or-we-have-no-movie scenario: if Willis' mission was to save the doctor, but she was adamant that her "people" make it out of the missionary, he would have put her on that first chopper and marched those refugees to the border without her. He would not have compromised his package for the refugees. That's not how it works. But, as I pointed out, this is Hollywood, we must have drama. This is why we make movies, because reality isn't quite so complicated. However, I did think that Willis and the good doctor had workable chemistry. That said, there are also some well done battle scenes in the film. It's not a waste of time, "Tears of the Sun" is worth the dvd rental fee. Check it out on a rainy day and you'll be satisfied.
| 0
|
train_4565
|
A noted cinematic phenomenon of the late eighties and early nineties was the number of Oscars which went to actors playing characters who were either physically or mentally handicapped. The first was Marlee Matlin's award for "Children of a Lesser God" in 1986, and the next ten years were to see another "Best Actress" award (Holly Hunter for "The Piano" in 1994) and no fewer than five "Best Actor" awards (Dustin Hoffman in 1988 for "Rain Man", Daniel Day-Lewis in 1989 for "My Left Foot", Al Pacino in 1992 for "Scent of a Woman", Tom Hanks in 1994 for "Forrest Gump" and Geoffrey Rush in 1996 for "Shine") for portrayals of the disabled. Matlin, who played a deaf woman, is herself deaf, but all the others are able-bodied. This phenomenon aroused some adverse comment at the time, with suggestions being made that these awards were given more for political correctness than for the quality of the acting. When Jodie Foster failed to win "Best Actress" for "Nell" in 1994 some people saw this as evidence of a backlash against this sort of portrayal. My view, however, is that the majority of these awards were well deserved. I thought the 1992 award should have gone to either Clint Eastwood or Robert Downey rather than Pacino, but apart from that the only one with which I disagreed would have been Hanks', and that was because I preferred Nigel Hawthorne's performance in "The Madness of King George". In that film, of course, Hawthorne played a character who was mentally ill. "My Left Foot" was based upon the autobiography of the Irish writer and painter Christy Brown. Brown was born in 1931, one of the thirteen children of a working-class Dublin family. He was born with cerebral palsy and was at first wrongly thought to be mentally handicapped as well. He was for a long time incapable of deliberate movement or speech, but eventually discovered that he could control the movements of one part of his body, his left foot (hence the title). He learned to write and draw by holding a piece of chalk between his toes, and went on to become a painter and a published novelist and poet. Life in working-class Dublin in the thirties and forties could be hard, and the city Jim Sheridan (himself a Dubliner) shows us here is in many ways a grim, grey, cheerless place, very different from our normal idea of the "Emerald Isle". (Sheridan and Day-Lewis were later to collaborate on another film with an Irish theme, "In the Name of the Father"). Against this, however, must be set the cheerfulness and spirit of its people, especially the Brown family. Much of Christy's success was due to the support he received from his parents, who refused to allow him to be institutionalised and always believed in the intelligence hidden beneath a crippled exterior, and from his siblings. We see how his brothers used to wheel him round in a specially-made cart and how they helped their bricklayer father to build Christy a room of his own in their back yard. The film could easily have slid into sentimentality and ended up as just another heart-warming "triumph over adversity" movie. That it does not is due to a number of factors, principally the magnificent acting. In the course of his career, Day-Lewis has given a number of fine performances, but this, together with the recent "There Will Be Blood", is his best. He is never less than 100% convincing as Christie; his tortured, jerky movements and strained attempts at speech persuade us that we really are watching a disabled person, even though, intellectually, we are well aware that Day-Lewis is able-bodied. The other performances which stand out are from Fiona Shaw as his mentor Dr Eileen Cole, from Hugh O'Conor as the young Christy and from Brenda Fricker as Christy's mother (which won her the "Best Supporting Actress" award). The other reason why the film escapes sentimentality is that it does not try to sentimentalise its main character. Christy Brown had a difficult life, but he could also be difficult to live with, and the film gives us a "warts and all" portrait. He was a heavy drinker, given to foul language and prone to outbursts of rage. He could also be selfish and manipulative of those around him, and the film shows us all these aspects of his character. Of course, it also shows us the positive aspects- his courage, his determination and his wicked sense of humour. Day-Lewis's acting is not just physically convincing, in that it persuades us to believe in his character's disability, but also emotionally and intellectually convincing, in that it brings out all these different facets of Christy's character. His Oscar was won in the teeth of some very strong opposition from the likes of Robin Williams and Kenneth Branagh, but it was well deserved. 8/10
| 1
|
train_16571
|
A young man kills a young woman for no reason. The man's brother is jailed on charges that he was an accomplice, but soon escapes. Upon escaping, the seemingly innocent man kidnaps three victims and soon he ropes his girlfriend in on the plot. If this isn't bad enough, the situation quickly makes a downward spiral.This film had some good aspects and many bad ones. Its strongest aspect was lead actress Emily Haack. Setting aside the fact she's nude in a fair amount of this film, she presents herself as a decent actress and a very strong character. I see no reason she cannot take this experience and somehow turn it into a career in some way. I was convinced she was a ruthless individual.Also, the makers of this film were very bold and pulled no punches. Graphic nudity (both male and female), coprophagia, and extreme anal violence are not shied away from. I like my horror films to push the boundaries a little bit, and this one ignored them altogether, gladly skipping towards Gomorrah. Maybe it was too much, but I think they achieved what they were looking for.But now the negative aspects. First, and most noticeable, this film is very low budget and the film quality shows this. I can excuse that -- the plot was decent, the acting fine and in some scenes the lower quality film actually made the movie more disturbing (a more realistic feel). So, I won't scold them for having low-grade equipment. What I will scold them for is the use of poor choices in shots. For no reason I can ascertain (besides plumping the movie), there is a large amount of footage of a cemetery. I don't really know why, and I frankly started dozing off at this point because it was so long and pointless.I also take issue with the title. The idea here was to deceive people into thinking this film had some connection to the classic "I Spit on Your Grave". Now, there is a line that seems to imply the main character is the daughter of the woman from this other film. And the themes are very loosely the same (a woman getting revenge on men). But there is no firm connection and the reason this title was chosen was for the video store customer to think they were getting a sequel. This was deceptive and dishonest.My last major complaint is that this plot makes no real sense. Not even a little bit. A woman is killed in the beginning for no reason. A prison escapee finds time to kidnap people to torture them, for no reason (because they wronged his girlfriend?). The same man goes from good to very evil without explanation. Likewise, the female lead (Haack) turns fro ma normal person to someone who is overly cruel and sadistic, for no reason at all, and against people who for the most part were only marginally mean to her (a neighbor offering drugs for sex is wrong, but by no means worth getting tortured for).Don't let this title fool you, or the claims that the film is incredibly shocking. Yes, some scenes were shocking, but the vast majority of the film is dull and makes you want to take a nap. If you see this in the video store or on Netflix, just keep browsing. Or rent it, and we can sit around and vent about it for hours. You have been warned.
| 0
|
train_24676
|
The original Trancers is not by any means a great movie. It had massive plot holes and very little in the way of internal logic. However, it was entertaining, better done than most low-budget B-movies, and could be surprisingly witty. Unfortunately, Trancers II is none of these.Trancers II suffers from many of the same problems of most flop sequels. The plot is thin enough to see through and the writing is insipid. It seems that the people behind this movie felt that bringing the familiar faces of the first movie back would be enough, and didn't bother with anything else. Not even veteran B-grade actors like Tim Thomerson and Jeffery Combs were able to drag this film out of the muck.A brief plot overview: Jack Deth (Thomerson) is a cop from the future who was sent to 1985 to save the ancestors of members of his government. Trancers II takes place six years after the events of the first Trancers. Jack Deth is married to Lena (Helen Hunt), the woman he met in the first movie, and both live with Hap Ashby, the man Deth was sent into the past to protect. It is discovered that the brother of Whistler (the bad guy from the first movie) has traveled back in time to create an army of Trancers, people turned into mindless killing zombies, to kill Ashby. Complicating Jack's mission is the fact that his first wife, who had died long before Jack traveled to the past, was also sent back to stop Whistler's brother, and now Jack finds himself working with her.I have two real problems with this movie. One is that the method of creating Trancers in this movie is radically different from the methods used in the first movie. What makes it annoying is that, in a rather poor example of Soviet Revisionism, they act like it was always the technique.The other thing that annoys me is that the love triangle between Deth, Lena, and Alice Stilwell (Jack's first wife) is given very little screen time. This bothered me particularly because it was much more interesting than the actual plot of the movie. It felt like it was just something that was thrown in to fill space in the movie. Alice's character in particular seems very unconcerned with the fact that she is reunited with her husband only to find he's re-married, making her either very shallow or very poorly written.The only reason I can think of for watching this movie is if you're interested in watching the entire Trancers series (currently totaling six movies). Otherwise, even if you're a fan of the original Trancers, stay away from this tepid sequel.
| 0
|
train_2090
|
This is where the term "classic film" comes from. This is a wonderful story of a woman's bravery, courage and extreme loyalty. Poor Olan got sold to her uncaring husband, who through the years learned to appreciate her. (Yeah right, A PEARL!!) Luise Rainer was the beautiful star who had won the Best Actress Oscar the year before for her small role (and what a waste of an oscar) in "The Great Zigfield". It really didn't show what, if any, talent she had other than her exotic beauty. But in "Good Earth" she shows that she can really act! Her beauty was erased and she had no great costumes either. People say that she didn't show any real emotions in this film. Like hell. Her character Olan is a shy and timid woman, with inner strength. She is quiet during parts of the film with only her eyes and body to convey her emotions. Example: those scenes during the fall of the city and when looters were being shot. If you people are saying that she doesn't act well in this film, you are NOT looking!Paul Muni shows that he can act as well. His character is not a likeable one to me. He never sees her for what she is, until the very end of the story. A sweet loving and dedicated wife and mother, with her own special beauty. The greatest one of all, the beauty from within, like a pearl.If you get a chance to see this film, watch it. You will see one of the best films that the golden age of Hollywood created.
| 1
|
train_2
|
Bromwell High is nothing short of brilliant. Expertly scripted and perfectly delivered, this searing parody of a students and teachers at a South London Public School leaves you literally rolling with laughter. It's vulgar, provocative, witty and sharp. The characters are a superbly caricatured cross section of British society (or to be more accurate, of any society). Following the escapades of Keisha, Latrina and Natella, our three "protagonists" for want of a better term, the show doesn't shy away from parodying every imaginable subject. Political correctness flies out the window in every episode. If you enjoy shows that aren't afraid to poke fun of every taboo subject imaginable, then Bromwell High will not disappoint!
| 1
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.