id stringlengths 7 11 | text stringlengths 52 10.2k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|---|
train_8323 | "A little nonsense now and then, is cherished by the wisest men."If you are too smart to watch this movie, then you are too smart to be alive. Wonderful romp, wonderful premise, period piece done with acute eye for detail.Walter Matthau, Meg Ryan, Tim Robbins - et al - just wonderful!Rent it, sit down, relax, take it in, smile a little. Enjoy yourself. Then, thank me. | 1 |
train_12865 | Bad plot, bad dialogue, bad acting, idiotic directing, the annoying porn groove soundtrack that ran continually over the overacted script, and a crappy copy of the VHS cannot be redeemed by consuming liquor. Trust me, because I stuck this turkey out to the end. It was so pathetically bad all over that I had to figure it was a fourth-rate spoof of Springtime for Hitler.The girl who played Janis Joplin was the only faint spark of interest, and that was only because she could sing better than the original.If you want to watch something similar but a thousand times better, then watch Beyond The Valley of The Dolls. | 0 |
train_1303 | Eric Clapton, Jack Bruce and Ginger Baker re-unite to play all their songs from 35 years ago when they formed a trio called "Cream." Those were the psychedelic days of England and America and these guys looked it: all skinny, very long hair, wild clothes and loud music. They played a combination of rock and blues and it was, for the most part, good stuff.Well, these guys are now 60-something years old and they can still sing and play at a high level as this wonderful DVD concert disc shows us. I was always extremely familiar with Clapton, of course, who has never been out of the limelight, but I didn't know what to expect from Bruce and Baker, neither of whom I hadn't seen in decades. They surprised me. When he was young, Baker was so gaunt he looked like a speed freak near death. Now he looks healthy, in shape and his drum playing was solid. Bruce looked a bit haggard but his voice is great, as good as ever and a pleasure to hear on these old songs. This is just excellent material and performing from guys who know what they're doing.Some people criticized this show for being low-key. I don't agree with that. I have no complaints. The concert sounded very good. The second song, "Spoonful," was outstanding, the highlight of the concert for me.Highly recommended. | 1 |
train_224 | The Sunshine Boys is one of my favorite feel good movies. I first saw it when it as the Christmas attraction at Radio City Music Hall when it first came out and loved it ever since. I ended up seeing it 6 times in the theaters, and if it was playing today I'd go out to see it again.Now a lot of the reviews here mentioned the wonderful performances of the leads. Matthau was brilliant, but had the misfortune of being nominated against Jack Nicholson's Oscar winning performance of Randall P. MacMurphy in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's nest. Burns did win, though Richard Benjiman deserved at least to be nominated as well. Even the smallest roles were played to perfection, like Fritz Feld auditioning for the potato chips commercial. Which brings me to my reason for reviewing this film, the direction of the greatly underrated Herbert Ross. Ross who previously brought a two person play, "The Owl And The Pussycat" to the screen and made a full movie out of it, does it again. He opens the plays out without making them look like a photographic stage play. He fleashens out the story and the characters.Here we're 20 minutes into the film before we get to the scene that opens the play, where Ben Clark comes to see his uncle and tell him about the comedy special. Though there are dialogue from the play during the first twenty minutes, the sequence itself is totally new. A few years ago I did see at the broadway revival of the play with Jack Klugman and Tony Randall, which was wonderful. But I think that Ross and screenwriter, playwright Simon improved on it. It's just a wonderful film. | 1 |
train_5146 | As someone who was born to a German mother and English father (who spent five years in a prisoner of war camp) I come from unique position. One of having to deal with the various Nazis on one side of the family and the victors of WW2 on the other. This miniseries cannot delve into every single part of Hitler's psyche and must give the viewer a general flavor of the situation at the time and as best as one can Hitler's state of mind. In this the series does quite well. Carlyle is very good as is O'Toole, I would however liked to have got more information on the relationships with others in party Because Hitler did not do anything on his own. He had people around him that followed him to the letter often without question and certainly without question later on in his murderous career. What was going through Goebbels, Goring and Hess's mind? It would have been helpful to see more of these relationships. But I hope it will make people research the subject more. It might also make people understand why someone like Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to continue in power. | 1 |
train_18299 | I rented this film yesterday mostly due to the good-looking art and the summary given on the back of the jacket. After popping it into my DVD player I re-examined the jacket cover and even though I took the cover out of from the plastic viewer, I STILL could not read any of the production detail information about the film. This film is entitled Evil on the Jacket and had to locate it by going to Faith Films website to find out any linkage to it here on IMDb.The filming and special affects done in the film looked quite good ... THEN, a line-reading actor spoke. Oh dear ... this actor's reading sounded like some pimple-faced high school jock whose voice just managed to change pitch, and no attempt given to go beyond reading the lines from the script. At first I thought I got a bad disc out of audio sync, then had to surmise it was a foreign film since I couldn't read the jacket... English dialog dubbed. If they'd casted the right person for dubbing the dialog, this film MIGHT have been decent. I gave it a chance of about 20 minutes before ejecting it when I discovered the bad line reader wasn't going to get killed off, but stay as the constant main fixture. Yes, it is THAT bad! The jacket cover art and the art done in the film are great, so gave the one star, but minus 1,999,999 stars for the rotten dialog. I do not recommend this one! | 0 |
train_7481 | I could not agree more with the quote "this is one of the best films ever made." If you think Vanilla Sky is simply a "re-make," you could not be more wrong. There is tremendous depth in this film: visually, musically, and emotionally.Visually, because the film is soft and delicate at times (early scenes with Sofia) and at other times powerful and intense (Times Square, post-climactic scenes).The music and sounds tie into this movie so perfectly. Without the music, the story is only half told. Nancy Wilson created an emotional, yet eclectic, score for the film which could not be more suitable for such a dream-like theme (although never released, I was able to get my hands on the original score for about $60. If you look hard, you may be able to find a copy yourself). Crowe's other musical selections, such as The Beach Boys, Josh Rouse, Spiritualized, Sigur Ros, the Monkees, etcetera etcetera, are also perfect fits for the film (Crowe has an ear for great music).More importantly, the emotional themes in this film (i.e. love, sadness, regret) are very powerful, and are amplified tenfold by the visual and musical experience, as well as the ingenious dialogue; I admit, the elevator scene brings tears to my eyes time and time again.The best part of this film however (as if it could get any better) is that it is so intelligently crafted such that each time you see the film, you will catch something new--so watch closely, and be prepared to think! Sure, a theme becomes obvious after the first or second watch, but there is always more to the story than you think.This is easily Cameron Crowe's best work, and altogether a work of brilliance. Much of my film-making and musical inspiration comes from this work alone. It has honestly touched my life, as true art has a tendency of doing. It continually surprises me that there are many people that cannot appreciate this film for what it is (I guess to understand true art is an art itself).Bottom line: Vanilla Sky is in a league of its own. | 1 |
train_419 | This Cecil B. DeMille epic of the old West contains what may be Jean Arthur's finest performance, as a hysterical, eccentric, incurably amoral, but devotedly doting Calamity Jane. She really pulled it off! Gary Cooper is at his most taciturn, but manages some occasional pithy sayings: 'The plains are big, but trails cross ... sometimes.' The story is a pastiche to end all pastiches. All the cowboy heroes of Western lore seem to be in there somehow except for Jesse James. Even Abraham Lincoln opens the story in person (or at least, DeMille would have us believe so). There is no room for anything so evanescent as subtlety, this is a 'stomp 'em in the face' tale for the masses. A remarkable thing about this film however is that it is a very early full frontal attack on what Eisenhower was eventually to name 'the military industrial complex'. It isn't just a story about gun-runners, but about arming anyone for money, and doing so from the heart of Washington. But let's not get into politics, let's leave that to DeMille, who can be guaranteed to be superficial. The chief interest of this film all these years later is that it uses the first film score composed by George Antheil, who has a lot to say about the job in his autobiography, 'Bad Boy of Music'. Antheil seems to have originated 'the big sound' adopted by all subsequent Westerns, whereby the plains sing out with the voices and sounds of countless cowboys in the sky, celebrating the open spaces and interweaving common melodies. That is why it does not sound at all unusual, because we have heard it a thousand times. But he seems to have been the first to summon up the combined rustlings of all the sage brush into this symphony of the open skies which has entered into American mythic lore, and given it a soundtrack which has never varied since then, corny as it may be, but doubtless appropriate. It is amusing to see Anthony Quinn in an early appearance as a Cheyenne Indian. Gabby Hayes is in there somewhere, but you miss him in the crowd. Gary Cooper overtops them all, looming large, - but when did he ever loom small? | 1 |
train_24927 | I hated this movie. It was absolutely horrible, poor,poor, PITIFUL acting, REAL REAL REAL stupid criminals that weren't even the LEAST BIT funny(unlike the first 2 home alone movies that were very good). all the boobie traps are weak, pathetic excuses for ideas poorly copied of of the first two which just meant that the people writing this movie were just lazy because their paycheck didn't go above 20 bucks a week. This movie is absolutely lousy, it's not worth even renting. In fact don't even watch it on t.v.! Go use your eyes in a more useful way by seeing the first two! I BARELY give this 1 star(out of 10). Just trust me when I say, if you liked the first two, and you are not a complete stupid person, you will not like this movie,do not watch this movie!!! | 0 |
train_10987 | Trawling through the Sci Fi weeklies section of the local Video Rentals store I was losing hope of finding any good movies I hadn't yet seen. Renting Cypher was like a punt on a possibly very lame horse. My son is so jaded with current "B" Science Fiction that he hasn't bothered seeing this yet.It must be noted I didn't see anything about Cypher when it was released in Australia. It must have been very quiet or I just missed it.Well this WAS a really pleasant surprise! This is also no B movie. It's not a "blockbuster" of the epic variety and doesn't try to be - more a quiet movie that needs to be seen several times for it's plot to be fully savoured.The special effects are powerfully presented when they are used - my only complaint is the super helo is a leetle obviously CGI at first view, but they get it right at it's 2nd appearance, & that aside everything else is top notch. In any case the affects are secondary.I won't give anything away about the plot. The plot structure has a Russian Doll aspect a little reminiscent of Basic Instinct (though with very different content).Just I will say that Choosing Jeremy Northam for the lead was a master stroke. The actor was born in Cambridge ENGLAND, and his accent for this film hits the ear as a sort of extremely forced New England dialect, it's a tad off key. See the final twist of the plot and you'll see why that is such a brilliant choice! And Lucy Liu is also just right with her "will she kiss me - will she shoot me" edge.I rarely watch movies several times within days - this is one of them. | 1 |
train_11983 | This show has a great storyline! It's very believable! A mans wife dies and he cant take care of his children alone so he calls on his brother in law his best friend and many others come later on in the show. Such as Rebeecca Donaldson, ,the lovable yet strong dog Comet , Nikki and Alex who you can find out for yourself (I don't want to spoil it for you) and of coerce Kimmy Gibler! (The sidekick of DJ) but the kids are wonderful too. This is Mary Kate and Ashley first took off! And also you may know Candace Cameron Bure from shows like St.Elsewere Punky Brewster and that's so raven! Jodie Sweetin plays Steph the love able middle child who feels left out. Really this is a very good show! | 1 |
train_24554 | "What happens when you give a homeless man $100,000?" As if by asking that question they are somehow morally absolved of what is eventually going to happen. The creators of "Reversal of Fortune" try to get their voyeuristic giggles while disguising their antics as some kind of responsible social experiment.They take Ted, a homeless man in Pasadena, and give him $100,000 to see if he will turn his life around. Then, with only the most cursory guidance and counseling, they let him go on his merry way.What are they trying to say? "Money can't buy you happiness?" "The homeless are homeless because they deserve to be?" Or how about, "Lift a man up - it's more fun to watch him fall from a greater altitude." They took a man with nothing to lose, gave him something to lose, and then watched him dump it all down the drain. That's supposed to be entertainment? They dress this sow up with some gloomy music and dramatic camera shots, but in the end it has all the moral high ground of car crash videos - only this time they engineered the car crashes and asked, "What happens when you take down a stop sign?" | 0 |
train_10745 | Let me get the bad out of the way first, James Hanlon is absolutely terrible trying to act his descriptions of what was going on with the rookie training and events of the day. Really it is in stark contract to the other fire fighters without acting aspirations who are natural in their delivery.That said it is an amazing film that is impossible to watch without tears in my eyes. I am an English guy from London but I love New York and have visited many many times before and after September 11th. It is a second home to me and I can't help but feel devastated at the loss of life but also the destruction of part of such an amazing beautiful city. This is the real deal, in with the fire fighters with everything collapsing around them. I am so glad the footage exists to show people how it was on the day. It is a shame that they didn't use any footage of people jumping from the buildings because friends who were there tell me this is such a major part of their memory, it should be included to show future generations just how terrible it really was.Conspiracy theorists can go to hell by the way. | 1 |
train_4383 | **Attention Spoilers**First of all, let me say that Rob Roy is one of the best films of the 90's. It was an amazing achievement for all those involved, especially the acting of Liam Neeson, Jessica Lange, John Hurt, Brian Cox, and Tim Roth. Michael Canton Jones painted a wonderful portrait of the honor and dishonor that men can represent in themselves. But alas...it constantly, and unfairly gets compared to "Braveheart". These are two entirely different films, probably only similar in the fact that they are both about Scots in historical Scotland. Yet, this comparison frequently bothers me because it seems to be almost assumed that "Braveheart" is a better film than "Rob Roy". I like "Braveheart" a lot, but the idea of comparing it to "Rob Roy" is a little insulting to me. To put quite simply, I love "Braveheart", but it is a pale shadow to how much I love "Rob Roy". Here are my particular reasons...-"Rob Roy" is about real people.Let's face it, the William Wallace in "Braveheart" is not a real person. He's a legend, a martyr, a larger than life figurehead. Because of this depiction, he is also a perfect person, never doing wrong, and basically showing his Scot countrymen to the promised land. When he finally does fail, it is not to his fault. Like Jesus, he is betrayed by the very people he trusted most. He even goes through the worst kind of torture because he wants freedom so much.The depiction of Wallace is very well done and effective. But it really doesn't inspire or intrigue me. I find human ambiguity far more facinating than human perfection. That is why "The Last Temptation of Christ" is a better film than "King of Kings", and that is also one of the reasons why I think "Rob Roy" is better than "Braveheart". Rob Roy may be heroic and brave, but he is far from perfect. He makes several mistakes that affected the lives of many of his loved ones. Now sure, not bearing false claim against the Duke of Argyll was an act of nobility and courage, but it was also an act of egoism and self centeredness. Let us not forget that the kinfolk that he had claimed to protect were driven homeless by the end of the film because of this act. But Rob did the best he could, and that was all you could ask of him.Rob's Wife Mary, is also a normal, ambigious person. Let us start though, with how she looks in this film. Sure, she's beautiful, but she doesn't wear makeup and she basically allows her natural beauty to show. Compare this with the two loves (or one, depending on your point of view) of William Wallace in "Braveheart". Now these two ladies are hot, but hardly indicitive of how women looked at the time (especially the lay persons). Maybe not a fair comparison, but just another example of how Rob Roy's attempts for accuracy are far more effective.Throughout "Rob Roy", Mary has to live with her vicious rape by the dastardly carrion, Cunningham. She feels compelled to tell Rob of her struggle, but doesn't because she knows that Rob must seek revenge for her rape. Such revenge would surely mean the death of Rob, and Mary is not prepared for such a sacrifice.The villains in "Rob Roy" are equally as compelling. Although the enemies in "Braveheart" are well written, they are hardly original. Robert the Bruce, a man both brave and cowardly, is plagued by moral decisions that are all to familar in the fictional realm. Should he take his claim as the king of Scotland, or should he betray Wallace in order to ensure the safety of his family name? Bruce is the most ambigious character in "Braveheart", but from Brutus in "Julius Ceasar" to Fredo in "The Godfather Part II", these types of characters are hardly original. Longshanks, although a compelling villain in his own right, is very one dimensional. He is the epidemy of evil, and his tyrant ways stand in direct contrast to Wallace's heroism."Rob Roy" has three villains that are wonderful in their chicanery. First of all, let's start with Marquis of Montrose. He is a man who is so obsessed with his self image, that he's willing to let an innocent man suffer because of it. "See to it that I am not mocked" are his favorite words to his "factor". He is a man obsessed with power, upset that a man of great noble bearing as the Duke of Argyll can be considered of greater providency then him. He is shamefully self obsessed and insecure. He is an evil aristocrat, but in ways that make him unique.Cunningham and Callarn are the conspirators in "Rob Roy", and are also Roy's direct assailants. Callarn is so cunning in his cowardace that he is almost comical. He will do anything to maintain the good will of the Marquis, which includes backstabbing and trickery. Cunningham is a compelling character in that he seems to have been raised to do whatever he can to obtain status and the affection of the Marquis. He needs a father, little does he know that the Marquis is his real father. Therefore, when the opportunity to obtain wealth comes from Callarn, he grabs it without even questioning it. He is very much like the evil of modern man, so self centered and vain that he cares not about the consequences of his actions on others.Many have criticized Tim Roth's performance in this film as overacting. Hogwash I say. It is clear that Cunningham is not simply evil but also psychopath throughout the film. In a world where a man and his stepson can go around shooting random people for amusement, is Cunningham too much of an unbelievable character? We live in a society where people seem to have decreased the value of human life. "Rob Roy" simply teaches us that only the circumstances of this decreased value has changed. It is a problem throughout human history that the vanity of the human heart will not allow for the capacity for compassion. Rob Roy and Mary give us hope that goodness will prevail, but snakes will always exist in our world.Another character that I find fascinating is the Duke of Argyll. He is a true nobleman, and his values of honesty and courtesy are in direct contrast to the Marquis. He appreciates the bravery of Rob Roy and Mary, and has a direct vexation for the Marquis and his factor. He gives the world hope for the people of power. Hopefully, people like the Marquis are an exception and not the rule.- The final duel in "Rob Roy" is more exciting then 10 of the battle scenes in "Braveheart".One thing I get tired of is people telling me that "Braveheart" is a better film because of the battle scenes. First of all, battle scenes are hardly original. From "Spartacus" to "Gladiator", Hollywood has had a long tradition of historical European battle scenes. "Braveheart" has some of the best battle scenes ever put on film, but they suffer from one important problem. These battle scenes have no context except for the fight for freedom.Now, don't get me wrong, duels are hardly original either. In fact, there are probably 10 times as many films with duels as there are with battle scenes. But the context of the duel between Cunningham and Rob Roy is a beauty to behold. It is one of the greatest scenes in film history. Let me explain why...First of all, the fighting style and the bearing of the two characters in this duel describe the characters perfectly. Cunningham is effette and dangerous, Rob Roy is strong and courageous. Cunningham uses a fencing sword while Rob uses a broadsword. Cunningham fights with quick tricky movements, while Roy's fighting style is more obvious.The whole film, from the deliberately slow first half to the exciting second half, is leading up to this moment. It is powerful stuff, and it is clear that Rob must exterminate this menacing evil that has plagued his whole world. When Rob finally gets the upper hand (literally and figuratively,) it is one of the greatest moments in film history. Rob wins because he has more to live for, and his honor is more powerful than 10 Cunningham's. The use of music is absolutely chilling in this scene. Good prevailing against a real evil is more powerful to me than seeing a dude get disemboweled just so he can yell "FREEDOM!". But hey, maybe that's just me.- "Rob Roy" is more realistic than "Braveheart"I don't know that people in the aristocracy or Scotsmen talked like the people in "Rob Roy", but I do feel that it clearly an attempt to capture their speech patterns. I feel that many people are bored by "Rob Roy" simply because they can't understand what the characters are saying. If this is the case, then read some Shakesphere, or put on the close-captioning. "Rob Roy" is actually one of the greatest written films of the 90's. Many of the dialogue in this film is clever, but maybe you have to watch the film a couple of times to understand it.By contrast, the dialogue in "Braveheart" is hardly very interesting. Of course, what do you expect when the main character is a Scotsman played by an Australian? This is a legend, and there was clearly not an attempt to capture the speech of the times. This film takes place several centuries before "Rob Roy", and yet they talk like the people today. Thus the reason that many people like it better. Audiences today have become increasingly lazy, and they don't want to take the time or patience to understand things that are complex. Therefore, as with many epic films, they expect to see the villians speak a recognizable English accent while the heroes speak in a vernacular not too far away from our American language. Sure, it is clear that the Wallace is Scotish, but other than sounding like Scotty from Star Trek and a couple of "Aye"s for acknowledgement, the Scots in this film fit into the Hollywood tradition of how we believe Scots should sound.So, do these descriptions prove that "Rob Roy" is a better film than "Braveheart"? Hardly. But if it proves one thing, it shows that it is hardly common knowledge that "Braveheart" is a better film than "Rob Roy". To put simply, "Rob Roy" is a film that has themes that are very apropos in today's world. "Braveheart" is a film about a legend that is inspiring but hardly realistic. You can make a decision on what you think is better...Grade - A Score - 9 | 1 |
train_3191 | Director Edward Sedgwick, an old hand at visual comedy, successfully leads this Hal Roach road show which tenders a fast-moving and adroit scenario and excellent casting, employing a large number of Roach's reliable performers. Although the film was originally plotted as a vehicle for Patsy Kelly, sunny Jack Haley stars as Joe Jenkins, a young Kansan who sells his auto repair business and journeys to Hollywood, where he attempts to wangle a screen role for the girl he loves, star-struck Cecilia (Rosina Lawrence). Sedgwick, who prefers using the entire M-G-M studio as his set, does so here as Cecilia, always ready for an audition, is treated by a would-be paramour, cinema star Rinaldo Lopez (Mischa Auer), to behind-the-scenes action of, naturally, a musical comedy, featuring Broadway headliner Lyda Roberti. Laurel and Hardy provide several enjoyable interludes, including their well-known skit involving a tiny harmonica, and we watch fine turns by such as Joyce Compton, Russell Hicks and Walter Long. On balance, one must hand the bays to Mischa Auer, who clearly steals the picture as an emotional movie star, a role which he largely creates, and to the director for his clever closing homage to Busby Berkeley's filmic spectacles. | 1 |
train_23531 | It's interesting to see what the director tried to do with this film. But the problem is that it's not very good. There was nothing really original in the film and while the plot was well presented, the main characters were all a bit to shallow and you didn't bother for any of them.Rather bland (and sometimes downright bad) photo leaves a bit to be desired but I guess you can't expect to much from people who are just doing a low budget film for the heck of it. It's unfair to review the film and compare it to other high-budget films. But alas, that is what one must do. On its own, it's not very good. And compared to others, it's still not very good. But it is not without its good points! I liked the plot. It was built up rather nicely and tied together well at the end. Sometimes in the really dark scenes, it managed to build up a creepy feeling as well.However in the end the film fails to impress. The characters are pretty much non-existent and we don't care for any of them. Any of them might die, but it's possible to pinpoint the final "survivor" from very early on. | 0 |
train_15874 | This film is regarded by some as a classic - I've no idea why. It is terrible to the point of being laughable. The only saving grace with this movie are the delivery of cheesy lines that are so toe curlingly embarrassing that you have no choice but to laugh at them.There are a couple of good songs and good choreography in this film, but SO WHAT! There is no plot, it is set in a theatre with no change of scenery, and Michael Douglas is as depressing as ever. My brother once forced me to watch this film, because he said I wouldn't believe how bad a film can get! He was right.Normally with a film this dreadful I would recommend that people shouldn't watch it, but in this case I think people should, as it will put every other bad film you've seen in perspective. | 0 |
train_9356 | There may be spoilers!Charlie Fineman (Adam Sandler), who lost his family in a tragedy, (the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11), still grieves over their deaths. He runs into his former college roommate, Alan Johnson (Don Cheadle), and the two rekindle their friendship. Alan vows to help his old friend come to terms with the terrible loss. This is a simplification of the basic story of Reign Over Me. This movie is, however, a story of how fate intercedes in our lives when we ourselves may be powerless do any thing about our own states of being. Alan is stuck in a life that he knows is no longer fulfilling. He feels friendless and out of touch with his own reality. He is unable to communicate with his wife and his associates at work. He can't express his feelings and as a result feels lost and distant from his own world. He chances upon Charlie on the streets of Manhattan while driving from his job. Eventually he meets and discovers that Charlie, (who originally does not remember Alan), is living in a false reality of his own. Charlie has gone back to a time in his life when he had no family. He lives as if he were still a student playing in a rock band, collecting vinyl records of the 60s and 70s bands, and playing video games. He has escaped to a better and safer time in his life where there are no bad guys and he has a lot less to lose. Everyone in this movie is affected in some way by the tragedy that has affected Charlie and his remission to a formerly different and better (?) place. His landlady is his protector and great enabler. His in-laws are subtracted from his life because they would take him back to the reality that his family is now gone from his life. And Alan is most affected by him because Alan wants to, (in at first a selfish desire to escape from his own reality) to be with Charlie as a means to subtract himself from his own stifled reality and then he wants to find a way to help Charlie begin to recover from his self-induced guilt and denial of loss. It is through this relationship that not only is Charlie able to begin to heal himself but that Alan, in fact, learns to communicate and sate his true desires with his associates at work and, eventually, is able to admit to his wife he has not been able to communicate his real feelings to her but that he strongly wants to because he does love her. It is in fact a poignant moment in the film when the stuff has hit the fan and Charlie is being confronted with the reality of being put away that he and Alan are talking about the situation together over "Chinese" that Charlie states that he is in fact worried about Alan and not himself. This movie will, if you let it, take you through a river of emotions and leave you thinking. It will have you laughing at how Charlie uses his words, like people really do in everyday life, to make a comical statement of fact about a real situation. It will leave you on the verge of tears, (in my case actual tears), when Charlie confronts his grief and begins to come to grips with his tremendous loss. And that in fact the tragic reality is his guilt and loss has really never left him and he dealt with it in the only way he knew: denial. It will make you curse at the cold, unthinking actions of a young prosecutor trying to win his "case", (as I actually did at Charlie's hearing!) And it will make you smile at the commonsense of a old and wise, stern judge, (Donald Sutherland who is great at his short distinct role and gives the best performance of a wise, stern person in the legal profession since Wilford Brimley played an Assistant Attorney General in Absence of Malice.)This movie was also amazing to me for a few other reasons: (1) I never looked at my watch once during the showing of the film. Which means it had me from the beginning to the end, (2) Although the cast was interracial, this fact was not important to the playing out of the roles of the characters in the film. Race was a non-factor to the performance of the roles in this movie. Amazing people can actually interact with out this fact being brought out! and (3) the only real reference to 9/11 is when Charlie's financial attorney refers to the tragedy of Charlie's loss as "
what Charlie had become on 9/12". Time will be the true test of how this movie will stand out in the future but if the purpose of a movie is not to just entertain but to make one think and have that movie stay with you long after you leave the theatre then Reign Over Me succeeded phenomenally as far as I am concerned. I have not yet forgotten this wonderful thought provoking film and I will wait impatiently for the day I can purchase it as a DVD. | 1 |
train_20258 | this movie had a lot of blood in it when the sabretooth attack it also i loved it when that guy and the women were having some good time and then the sabretooth attacked the women and ate her stomach and took the liver out. that was the best and the 1ton sabretooth walking on its front legs hilarious to make this movie better more action and less talking if you know what i mean and also please please people who made this movie don't make anothwer movie like this movies ending cause it was terrible 1 sabretooth alive and killed that women in the end this movie reminds me of the grudges ending always there's 1 enemy left! OK damn it this movie sucks i can 't believe it i loved it when my lil bro got freaked from the attacks stomach takin out and the blood ya | 0 |
train_7131 | This made-for-TV film is a brilliant one. This is probably the best and favourite role by BAFTA winning John Thaw (Kavanagh Q.C. and Inspector Morse). Tom Oakley (Thaw) widowed man has lived in a village alone for a while since his wife and son died, and now he has been landed with an evacuee called Willaim Beech (Nick Robinson). As he gets to know this child he starts to develop a friendship. Until Willaim's Mum (Annabelle Apsion) wants him back. After Tom gets worried about William not contacting him he goes to London to find him. In the end Willaim gets his home with a loving family (or Dad). Set during the Second World War this is an excellent film. It was nominated the BAFTA Lew Grade Award, and it won the National Television Award for Most Popular Drama. John Thaw was number 3 on TV's 50 Greatest Stars. Very good! | 1 |
train_10762 | I was one of many that expected to see a glorified, Yankee-doodle dandy portrayal of a day that (as famously quoted) should live in infamy, rather than glory. How wrong I was. These guys were there, right in the middle of it, and the pictures they returned are both amazing and heartbreaking. And yet it all occurred on a chance trip to the world trade centre on September 11, 2001.Two French filmmakers were compiling a documentary about life as a NY firefighter, particularly from the perspective of a young rookie coming up through the ranks. At the beginning we see much of this footage, just to remind us that there was no thought to producing a film about terrorism. This was intended to be a film about regular people earning an honest living helping others, and the beauty of the film is that it never loses this edge.While investigating a suspect gas line (I think, my memory's a little hazy on that), we suddenly hear a plane fly overhead. The camera pans up to reveal a commercial jet torpedoing itself into one of the towers. What must the cameraman have been thinking at this time? Recognising the importance of the footage the camera stays on, and possibly realizing the same thing, the FDNY allow the camera to follow them into the building.What follows is a true view from the front-lines. We see the commitment of the FDNY, their reactions (the stunned silence after hearing the first person fall to their death is chilling) as well as the collapse of the one of the buildings from the inside, while a second camera captures the events from the outside.If it wasn't for the horrific event they were covering, the footage alone would be any young doco-maker's dream come true. Quite simply, the footage deserves to be preserved for all time. But what really sets this film apart is the genuine humanity that it brings to the viewer. We see firefighters charging in without hesitation, people of different races helping one another escape to wave of rubble and even the concern of the filmmakers for one another (they are brothers) as they cannot reach one another in the confusion. There are amazing sights as well as amazing human stories in this film, something Hollywood could never duplicate (even though it's trying).9/11 isn't a film about politics. Nor is it a film about religion, nationality or even jihad for that matter. 9/11 is a film about people, and a true indication of the best and worst that we are capable of. 9/11 is quite simply one of the most important films I've ever seen, and would be the only film to be born from this event if it were up to me. You can't duplicate this. | 1 |
train_21607 | I was mad anyone made this movie. I was even more angry I lost valuable minutes of my life sitting still to watch this. I could have had a wax job and been more entertained. At least Cherri makes me laugh before it hurts. I was a bit confused at first but then I caught on and realized what was going on. By this time the film was half way through, and Yes I am a procrastinator but I always want to see things through until the end. So I stuck it out I watched it all. Not only are the actors not as attractive as in Cruel Intentions, they just aren't convincing. I've seen my nephew cry for attention more convincingly than the supposed lust portrayed on screen in this movie. If you like bad movies with bad acting watch this. | 0 |
train_22081 | That is the only thing I can positive to say about this movie. Cleveland is the star, I've been there and never saw the city look this good. Beautiful river and cityscapes.This movie moves ahead at such a pace they hope you won't notice the lack of real world relevance. People running around and shooting guns without any consequence. For example, there is a shoot out at Rob Lowe's character's house- two cars are stolen, and yet the cops don't show up there till much later in the movie. Murder for hire never looked so implausible.Whoever wrote this movie should be on the receiving end of one the movies countless stray bullets. Many of the actors in this movie are so much better than this. I check the date of the movie just to make sure it wasn't written during the writers strike but alas this was not the case. This movie is currently in rotation on Universal's HD channel- unless you want to drool of over Lowe there is no reason to watch it. | 0 |
train_6674 | The first thing I thought after watching "Mystery Men" was how could this movie be so unpopular? I found this movie so adorable and funny that it's status as a bomb defies logic. Well, I hope that in the future it becomes a cult hit, and you can count me amoung it's fans.Simply put, and without giving too much away, this movie does for comic books what "the Princess Bride" did for fairy tales and "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" did for classic cartoons. That should give you a more accurate idea of the tone of the movie then the marketing commitee it was unfortunately signed to (this is one of those cases like "the Iron Giant" where the studio had no clue what it had on it's hands). Rent it the next time you're in the mood for something a little offbeat. You won't listen to the BeeGees in the same light ever again. | 1 |
train_24162 | I don't often go out of my way to write comments, but for this I had to, just to warn anyone that might think that by watching this they will see a comedy. This doesn't come close. While the premise (change in colour/gender/whatever) is bad enough (and has been done, better, many times before)the actual transformation of two black guys into two white girls is one of the least convincing transformations ever put on screen. It would be bad enough if all that was required by the script was a change to white chicks. However the Wayans brothers are required to disguise themselves as two specific white women. As you will have guessed by now, they fail completely. I have seen drag queens without makeup make more convincing women than these two do with the best special effects and make-up people that Hollywood can provide. Its appalling. Add to the mix a basketball player built like a building, terrible dialogue and more plot holes than a golf course and this film hits a new personal low. And I like bad movies! Avoid like the plague. | 0 |
train_12294 | I suppose I always felt that Hotel du Nord was studio-bound, the movement of people cars and camera were just too effortlessly smooth and stagey to have been filmed on location. But no problem - it's still a much underrated lovely composition from Marcel Carne. The plot seems a bit choppy at times, as if they were making it up as they went along, but because it is unpredictable holds the attention to the bitter end. The money shots when the 2 lovers are alone in their room are saddled with some rather stilted dialogue, but it's all so lovely to fall into any inanity can be accepted. Are these 2 young people symbols of a cancerous hopelessness in pre-War France or simply idiots? Suicide pacts are fairly common; if the suicidees are young and healthy with their lives before them untrammelled would you think anything other than that they were just misguided fools?Arletty played the part of prostitute well - she kept that zipper on her dress busy throughout anyway! I've only seen a few films with Jouvet - he is the most impressive invention as pimp in HDN - my trouble is shallow: every time I see his face I think of Sonnie Hale in Evergreen!A remarkably atmospheric, well acted and photographed film with so much happening it needs a few viewings to get it all in place. Annabella and Aumont made an exceptionally beautiful couple; Francois (Heurtebise) Perier in his 2nd film had a small amusing part as a gay man. All in all: wonderful. | 1 |
train_19439 | R Balki tries to tell you a story that had been earlier told by Ram Gopal Verma in Nishabd in a sensuous way. This time it is mixed with mature humors.Amitabh Bachchan is a Chef and owns an Indian Cuisine in London. He is very dominating and arrogant and respects his job just like any other job. According to him, Cooking is an art. Still cannot make Hyderabadi Biryani properly.Enter Tabu who sends her the proper Hyderabadi Biryani made by her and they soon starts meeting up and finally falls in love with each other
Amitabh is 65 and Tabu is 35
. No probs! But one Hitch! Tabu's father Paresh Rawal!! The couples decide to meet the father for the approval of their marriage. But Amitabh realizes that Tabu's father is much younger to him. And the complications begin
Performance wise all three actors are brilliant. The script of the film is very tight and interesting. The dialogues of the film are catchy. But somewhere you feel that your stomach is not properly filled. The comedy is sometimes not properly understood. The film also tries to go lengthy at some parts.Musically nothing much to sing about except the Title Track. The camera-work is good. Director R Balki could have given much better from this script. But in the second half he himself looks confused. The "Satyagrah" scene of the father looked irritating. But the lines spoken by Amitabh Bachchan during that scene are clap worthy.On the whole, Cheeni Kum needed to have more sugar! | 0 |
train_12970 | I used to LOVE this movie as a kid but, seeing it again 20+ years later, it actually sucks. Up The Academy might have been ahead of it's time back in 1980, but it has almost nothing to offer today! Movies like Caddyshack and Stripes hold-up much better today than this steaming dogpile. No T&A. No great jokes except for the one-liners we've all heard a million times by now.I recently bought the DVD in hopes that it would be the gem I remembered it being. Well, I was WAY off! The soundtrack had only 2-3 widely-recognizable hits (not the smash compilation others had mentioned) and the frequent voice-overs were terrible. The only thing that was interesting, to me, was predicting what the character's lines were before they said them. Yep, I watched this movie that much back then! The only reason I am writing this review is to give my two cents on why this movie should be forgotten, sorry to say. :( | 0 |
train_5452 | A pre-code stunner with Stanwyck playing a speakeasy whore who sleeps her way to the top. These pre-code flicks really let it all go with nothing left to the imagination. Stanwyck is outstanding as Lilly the daughter of a speakeasy owner/father who sold more than booze to his patrons(johns).After the old man dies(good!) Barb heads for the big city for better things.She uses her female attributes to sleep her way to the top. John Wayne makes a poor "cameo" and proves that actors get better with age and an acting coach. I loved the banter and strong lines between the actors. I highly recommend this film to all film buffs and to watch Stanwyck who is great and beautiful as Lilly. | 1 |
train_21822 | Please do not let the cover of this movie fool you. And if you're looking for a cheap horror movie to laugh at: this isn't it. Usually I will go for stupid if it's funny, but this stupid was so stupid it almost (or possibly did) make me stupid.The film quality is better than a handheld, but not by much, and it's quite possible the music was created by pressing the Samba 2 key on a Casio keyboard. These problems should never really be a deterent from seeing a horror movie but add this amazing (weep) cast, and you have a real humdinger.The story is about a guy who invites his friends up to his family cabin in Texas for the weekend. He also extends the invitation to his lady crush in his office. On the way there they meet a female in distress, who is then invited to come along by the other girls.The stay at the cabin includes sex and nudity and soon everyone's panties are in a bunch when one girl disappears and odd items turn up in the house.From there you (the audience) and the morons, um, actors, try to figure out what's going on and they soon begin to distrust one another. Overall I think I have made it sound better than it is. The main struggle with this movie is that the characters are very underdeveloped, the plot contrived, the acting bad and the motivations clueless. Once more this could be forgiveable it it was the least bit funny but alas, it is not.The twist ending is only a twist in that no one would guess it simply because if you really thought back through the movie it would not have made sense anyway. Please don't let this review stop you from seeing the shear wonderment of this movie. (Woah, my nose just grew eight inches.) | 0 |
train_18826 | If you're in the mood for some dopey light entertainment, this will pass the time. If you expect one jot of plausibility, don't bother. To me, the dance scene looked like it was exaggerated for comic effect; it didn't look especially hot or skilled. | 0 |
train_3720 | Joel schumacher Made a heck of a choice when he decided on this cast and this script. The story is well written and well laid out, and this entirely new cast of 10 or 12 central characters was absolutely brilliant. It seemed that there were 6 "leads" and about a half dozen supporting, and by far this is the best thing about the movie, the fresh young faces of tomorrow. It has been a long time since hollywood has touched the controversial vietnam war films,which says something for the"story that needed to be told"(as stated by schumacher) and Tigerland lands in that handful of top war movies period. Yet it can not be labeled as a war movie because it seemed to be based more on the human spirit of Bozz and the others. I Think anyone who just wants to see a good film with out all of the special FX, but just good, gritty drama should go see Tigerland, obviously Shumachers Best works in the past 8 years. | 1 |
train_23982 | It, at all, you have seen when harry met sally, then avoid this one. It will not only make you bang your head on the table as why can't bollywood even make a good remake; but also annoy you with the so called funny moments in it. The charm of the movie is missing. Ranee looks terrible. Saif tries to act like he is one hell of an actor. The plots that have been picked up from the original, don't look effective either. The part where both of them bring their friends along and they hit a note, it just doesn't look appealing. What can be more disastrous? you wanna waste some money, this is what you can get. Otherwise, put some more bucks, and watch the original. Its too good to miss.. | 0 |
train_19408 | This series had potential, but I suppose the budget wouldn't allow it to see that potential. An interesting setup, not dissimilar to "lost" it falls flat after the 1st episode. The whole series, 6 episodes, could have made a compelling 90 minute film, but the makers chose to drag it on and on. Many of the scenes were unbearably slow and long without moving the action forward. The music was very annoying and did not work overall. There were few characters we cared about as their characters did not grow during the time frame--- well, one grew a bit. The ending was as terrible as the rest of series. The only kudos here is to the art dept and set dressers, they created an interesting look, too bad the writer and director lacked the foresight to do something interesting with that element | 0 |
train_9094 | I saw this independent film when it was in Philadelphia and it was a pleasant surprise. I left the theater with a smile on my face. One of the things that made it so funny was that it was based on a true story -hilarious! It has some great character actors in it too. Mindy Sterling is in it and is very good. I loved her in Austin Powers. Howard Hesseman is also terrific. I remember him from Head of the Class. I am tired of all the dark edgy movies that keep getting made. This is fun and light, and I can watch it with my family and not be embarrassed. I keep checking to see when it will come out on DVD. I will definitely buy it. | 1 |
train_8427 | This is one of the oddest films of the Zatôichi series due to its very unusual pacing and the role that Ichi plays in the film. Interestingly enough, this was the first Zatôichi film made by Shintaro Katsu's new production company. Now, instead of just playing the blind swordsman, Katsu is in charge of making the films. This could easily explain why this film seems so different in style to the previous 15 films. As far as Ichi's role, the film is very different because he isn't in the film as much as usual. He's also easy to fool and actually, for a while, does a lot to harm people instead of helping! "Zatôichi Rôyaburi" begins with Ichi talking with an old lady who tries to take advantage of his blindness. Oddly, in this scene, Ichi says that he's been blind since a toddler, though in an earlier film he says his blindness set in when he was 8. This is a minor mistake, and only a crazed fan like myself would have noticed.This film takes place over a period of at least six months and is more likely to have taken a year--so you can see what I said about odd pacing. Most films in the series take place over a few days or weeks. Ichi comes to a town where there is a boss (Asagoro) who tries very hard to be nice to Ichi because he knows of the blind man's reputation. The boss is quite charming and surprisingly Ichi is totally taken in by the evil man. At the same time, he meets another boss (Shushui)--a sort of guru to the poor. Shushui admonishes the people to forsake all violence and even Ichi falls under his teaching--giving up his blade for many months. Shushui's teachings are very similar to Daoist teachings from China--non-violence and acceptance of life as it is (for good or for bad). Months after leaving this town and thinking all was well, Ichi learns that as soon as he left, Asagoro showed his true colors--enslaving women, oppressing the poor and being an all-around jerk. In a way, Ichi is responsible for this, as he helped Asagoro and counted him as a friend. Now, Asagoro has captured Shushui and several innocent people have killed themselves due to the evil boss' actions.When Ichi returns, he doesn't accept automatically that Asagoro is good or evil but tests him cleverly. This bit with a scarecrow is inspired and leads to a finale where, what else, Ichi kills the baddies and frees Shushui. This finale was very good and occurred in the rain. Then final scene with Asagoro and the rocks is great, though the beheading is a tad cheesy by today's special effects standards.Pluses for the film are that although poorly paced, it is different and cannot be mistaken for the previous 15 (which often seem very similar). Additionally, it does end very well. Minuses (aside from pacing) are that some might dislike seeing Ichi so fallible and the scenes with Ichi and the other blind men that are included for comic relief fall flat...very, very, very flat. They are tacky and unfunny...that's the sort of flat that it is. | 1 |
train_3608 | Sports movies have never been my thing, but a small handful of them work for me. The best are the those which focus less on the sport and more on the character, such as Raging Bull, the Wrestler and Girlfight. This is a great directorial debut for Karyn Kusama, and an outstanding first performance for Michelle Rodriguez. Girlfight feels is both realistic and involving, that is enough so to make it a memorable film.The plot is strait forward enough. Diana Guzman, is in her fourth year of high school, but due to her picking fights in the hallway she is close to expulsion. As a possible means of unleashing her anger, she signs up for Boxing lessons at the club where her brother is training (at the wishes of there father).In the course of ninety minutes, we the viewers see something extraordinary. Diana almost literally changes from a girl to a woman. We see it in her body as well as her behaviour, especially when one of the boys at the club finds himself drawn to her, and she gets into it. There is not a bad scene or a lame/contrived moment in the film. The only error that I would say could be corrected is that one of the subplots ends on what feels like an unfinished note. Aside from that, Girlfight is a great movie. | 1 |
train_5661 | I see a lot of folks on this site wishing AG would come out on DVD. Well, I bought it on DVD. (From Borders, no less!) While it is great to have this terrific show in a boxed DVD form, I am upset by the fact that they added very few in the way of "extra's" (A director commentary from Shaun Cassidy on the Pilot episode) and the episodes are shown in the same order they were put out on TV. The missing episodes that were never shown prior to being run on Sci Fi channel are in the box set, but are tacked on the final DVD. If you buy the DVD set, get the actual order they are to be viewed and you will be happier. (You will need to swap DVD's in and out of your player to see them in order, but you will be glad you did.)S | 1 |
train_790 | Kenny Doughty as Jed Willis is sexier in this role than any male porn star, even though he keeps his pants on.The movie tore at my heart reminding me of the intensity of the big explosive love of my life. I don't think I can think of another movie, except perhaps Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet that captures that giddy joy that well.The other draw of the movie is the very English eccentric characters enjoying the scandal vicariously. In that sense it is much the same appeal as Midsomer Murder or a Miss Marple mystery, without the mayhem.This is a great antidote to the mock horror currently popular in the USA an any relationships between people of different ages. | 1 |
train_2506 | Moon Child was one of the more symbolic movies I've seen. What I really liked about it was the illustration on immorality/mortality,and the obstacles and guidances through life. The movie depicts a great deal of vampire Kei having the power of immorality and the advantages to it. Whether if it is having supernatural abilities or everlasting life, these are what humans usually wish for. Moon Child shows the pain and disadvantages of being immortal, since the feelings towards loss impacts almost all the characters especially to the main characters Sho and Kei. The meaning of the title 'Moon Child' reveals as the film comes close to the end where it clearly shows that everyone is a moon which shines other people's way, giving guidance. I personality quite like that moral the movie depicted on. The weaknesses of the film lies in some parts of the acting and special effects since it made the film less authentic. The scene where character Toshi dies could have been more powerful and realistic if more authentic emotions in the acting were put into it. Some scenes with special effects like the gun shots also could have been more authentic without making it seem too much like an action video game. The sparks that came out of the guns appeared too fake and I think that could have been eliminated or fixed. Nevertheless, I think Moon Child should be a movie everyone should consider watching. The symbolic ideas and images the movie brings out would be easily accepted by everyone and may interest many viewers. It is quite a thoughtful film and also entertaining to watch. | 1 |
train_24719 | This was a weird movie. It started out pretty good. A solid sound track behind flash images of gore and mayhem as our psychopath did his thing.Next comes his "down fall" Here i could tell I was in for a real cheesy "B" movie. Poor acting , I mean how hard is it to hold a gun and act like a cop? These guys could not. After the death scene of our psychopath we get the opening credit and the movie starts...From this point on it is bad acting big boobs, the occasional bucket of blood and poorly done death scenes.That said I gave the movie a four because in spite of its flaws it did maintain a sort of creepiness that I just could not quite shake off.I do not recommend this movie but I have to admit I have seem worse. | 0 |
train_16531 | Really it's a dreadful cheat of a film. Its 70-minute running time is very well padded with stock footage. The rest are non descript exteriors and drab interiors scenes. The plot exposition is very poorly rendered. They are all just perfunctory scenes sort of strung together. There is no attempt at drama in scene selection but rather drama is communicated by the intensity of the actors. Please don't ask.The plot concerns a rocket radiating a million degree heat orbiting earth five miles up threatening to destroy the earth. It's a real time menace that must be diverted if a custom built H-bomb can be fashioned and placed in an experimental rocket within an hour. Nothing very much here to report except for a mad speech by a scientist against the project because there might be some sort of life aboard and think of the scientific possibilities but this speech made by the obligatory idiot liberal was pretty much passé by then.What saves this film, somewhat uniquely, IS the stock footage. I've never seen a larger selection of fifties jet fighter aircraft in any other film. This is by no means a complete list but just some of the aircraft I managed to see. There's a brief interception by a pilot flying, in alternate shots, an F-89 Scorpion and an F-86. First to scramble interceptors is the Royal Canadian Air Force in Hawker Hunters and F-86 Sabre Jets (or Canadian built CF-13s) and even a pair of CF-100 Clunks.Then for some reason there are B-52s, B-47s and even B36s are seen taking off. More padding."These Canadian jets are moving at 1200 miles an hour". I don't think so since one of them appears to be a WW2 era Gloster Meteor, the rest F-80s. The Meteors press the attack and one turns into a late F-84F with a flight of early straight wing F-84s attacking in formation.There's a strange tandem cockpit version of the F-80 that doesn't seem to be the T-33 training type but some sort of interim all-weather interceptor variant with radar in the nose. These are scrambled in a snowstorm.An angled deck aircraft carrier is seen from about 500 meters. It launches F-8U Crusaders, F-11F Tigers, A-5 Vigilantes and A-3 Skywarriors. The Air Force scrambles F-86s and F-84s and more F-89s then you've ever seen in your life as well as F-100 Super Sabres and F-102 Delta Daggers.The F-100s press their attack with sooooo much padding. The F-89's unload their rockets in their wingtip pods in slo mo. The F-86s fire, an F-102 lets loose a Falcon, even some F-80s (F-94s?) with mid-wing rocket pods let loose. There is a very strange shot of a late model F-84 (prototype?) with a straight wing early model F-85 above it in a turn, obviously a manufacturer's (Republic Aviation) advertising film showing the differences between the old and the new improved models of the F-84 ThunderJet. How it strayed into here is anybodies guess.There is other great stock footage of Ottawa in the old days when the capital of Canada was a wide spot in the road and especially wonderful footage of New York City's Times Square during one of the Civil Defense Drills in the early 50s. I think we also have to deal with the notion that this was filmed in Canada with the possible exception of the auto chase seen late in the picture as the Pacific seems to be in the background. The use of a Jowett Jupiter is somewhat mind-boggling and there is a nice TR 3 to be seen also. Canada must have been cheap and it is rather gratuitously used a lot in the background.As far as the actual narrative of the film there is little to recommend it other than the mystery of just who Ellen Parker is giving the finger to at the end of the picture. And she most definitely is flipping someone off. Could it be, R as in Robert Loggia? The director who dies before this film was released? Her career as this was her last credit?Its like the newspaper the gift came wrapped in was more valuable than the gift. | 0 |
train_11234 | This is a brilliant and well made contribution by a group of fans, and considering it's made in a back bedroom on a painted green screen it's story lines are complex and twisting, and it's characters show realistic depth and dimension. The CGI created by the crew is breathtaking. While it's first season might be a little shaky, it's final few are well thought out and well shot. Some fans might have thought that the Star Trek Franchise had come to an end with the early cancellation of Enterprise, but these fans don't take no for an answer. I recommend this to fans and newcomers alike, 10/10 hidden frontier crew.Make it so... | 1 |
train_520 | My only minor quibble with the film I grew up knowing as STAIRWAY TO HEAVEN, is the fact that the wonderful RAYMOND MASSEY is relegated to the last twenty or so minutes in the trial scene. And the trial itself, IMO, is the least interesting portion of this fascinating fantasy.David NIVEN and KIM HUNTER are wonderfully cast as the young lovers, but it's ROGER LIVESEY who gives the liveliest and most credible performance. French accented MARIUS GORING is a delight (he even gets in a remark about Technicolor) as the heavenly messenger sent to reclaim Niven when his wartime death goes unreported due to an oversight. Goring has some of the wittiest lines and delivers them with relish.Seeing this tonight on TCM for the first time in twenty or so years, I think it's a supreme example of what a wonderful year 1946 was for films. The Technicolor photography, somewhat subdued and not garish at all, is excellent and the way it shifts into B&W for the heavenly sequences is done with great imagination and effectiveness.The opening scene is the sort that really draws a viewer into the fantasy aspects of the story--and Niven's tense talk with radio operator Hunter while his plane is crashing toward earth, unexpectedly leads to a memorable romantic encounter. Truly a marvelous film from beginning to end, another triumph for Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger. | 1 |
train_12797 | For the record, this film is intriguing but its hardly original. Back in 1998 a movie starring Talia Shire called The Landlady had almost the exact same plot but with younger characters.The story is Amanda Lear has had a bad life, abusive father, horny doctor, mental homes, etc. She's finally released from the happy home under the guidance of her perverted doctor...who she anally abuses and kills the poor guy. (now THAT was original) The doctor had financed a mansion for her before she killed him and buried the sucker in the backyard. After moving in she falls in love with a stud named Richard, who just happens to be married to a blues singer. If you've seen The Landlady you know the rest, she kills or tries to kill anyone that gets in between her and Richard (including a roadie).Much of the idea's came from the previous movie, same idiot sidekick that sticks his nose in, same spying on the guy with a bowl of popcorn, same flying a bodypress. It did have some original material, the beer bottle thing was brutal. The highlight of the movie was Amanda's beautiful breasts in the hot-top scene. Somewhat of a ripoff but not a total waste of time.4 out of 10 | 0 |
train_13869 | Amy Heckerling's second film Johnny Dangerously is a parody of 1930's gangster films made in the Warner Brothers' tradition. Michael Keaton stars as a middle aged gangster looking back at his life of hard knocks when he catches a kid trying to steal something from his pet store in 1935. Keaton's mother (Maureen Stapleton) has continuing health problems, so Keaton falls into crime at an early age via Peter Boyle. Meanwhile, the fargan Richard Dimitri plays a rival crime lord to Boyle and Keaton eventually rises through the ranks. Joe Piscopo has a hilarious turn as Danny Vermin, yeah that's right, Vermin! Griffin Dunne is Keaton's younger brother turned district attorney, Glynnis O'Connor his wife, and Marilu Henner plays Keaton's moll. The film looks notoriously cheap, making it seem like a television show instead of a theatrical film.The film starts out great and then slows down as expected after the first half hour. Due to the combination of dialog and gags, the film holds its own for the first half, but then it rapidly loses steam and descends into mediocrity and vulgarity in the second half. Keaton chews the scenery doing his best James Cagney impression. Stapleton has several vulgar lines that are only obnoxious, not funny. Piscopo does the "once" bit one time too many. Several supporting actors try to hold up the fort like Danny DeVito, Dom DeLuise, Ray Walston as a street vendor, Alan Hale, Jr. as a desk sergeant, and Sudie Bond as an unscrupulous cleaning lady. The second half evolves into a hit or miss television show type tone and never recovers. The closing scene utilizing The Roaring Twenties is an anachronism as is The Call Of The Wild Clark Gable film seen on a marquee earlier in the film. I think Heckerling should have known better, since the targeted audience would certainly be aware of The Roaring Twenties' actual 1939 release date. *1/2 of 4 stars. | 0 |
train_1267 | JUST CAUSE is a flawed but decent film held together by strong performances and some creative (though exceedingly predictable) writing. Sean Connery is an anti-death penalty crusader brought in to save a seemingly innocent young black man (Blair Underwood) from the ultimate penalty. To set things right, Connery ventures to the scene of the crime, where he must contend not only with the passage of time, but a meddling sheriff (Laurence Fishbourne). Twists and turns and role reversals abound -- some surprising, some not -- as the aging crusader attempts to unravel the mystery. The climactic ending is a bit ludicrous, but JUST CAUSE is worth a look on a slow night. | 1 |
train_10312 | As long as you go into this movie knowing that it's terrible: bad acting, bad "effects," bad story, bad... everything, then you'll love it. This is one of my favorite "goof on" movies; watch it as a comedy and have a dozen good laughs! | 1 |
train_14179 | I was excited when I heard they were finally making this horrific event into a movie. The whole era (1980's Southern California) and subject matter (drug and porn industry) is intriguing to me. I thought this would be a sure fire hit. I was not thrilled with the choice of Kilmer as Holmes, they do not resemble each other in physical appearance or mannerisms. I guess he sells tickets? However, I was willing to overlook this and give it a fair shot. I was a bit shocked that there were only like four other people in the entire theater with me on that first day of showing. Now the whole crime and story in the film is hard to do, I will admit that. There were no witnesses to this very violent and brutal act. John Holmes was there, but he was also a pathological liar and worried about what would happen to his family (and self) if he talked to police about it. In fact, Holmes never really testified about what happened and the crime did go unsolved. So this was still really one big mystery, a mystery that this movie does nothing to cast light on. The person writing the screenplay had a whole lot of discretion and most of the principal characters are dead. However, there is no real storyline, it is fragmented claptrap. The script is light and the actors try to hard to beef up paper thin lines by overacting. The film gives no insight into Holmes or the other people involved. Kilmer's character disappears for long stretches, his girlfriend is dull, the police are jokes. Even Kudrow tries hard to make a flimsy role look substantial. It is a very shallow piece and dare I say, boring. The director even tries to turn it into a love story. Which is nice, unless you know anything about what a piece of trash John Holmes really was. Perhaps a couple of viewings of Anderson's "Boogie Nights" might have helped here. "Boogie Nights" was innovative and exciting in all regards. This film on the other hand was flat and without any real charm or style. Even the music is out of place, with Duran Duran being played in a scene that was supposed to have taken place in 1980. Then we have Gordon Lightfoot? Gordon Lightfoot? There could have been a great film based on this gruesome event, but I have not seen it yet. I have not seen even a decent one yet (unless you consider the Rahad Jackson scene from Boogie Nights). | 0 |
train_14042 | was this tim meadows first acting role in a movie? the character, leon, is funny enough but shortly after that the sexual jokes and humor are too dumb to listen to anymore. some movies can get away with the sexual jokes, and base their audiences to know that right when the advertising comes on. some movies that do this are american pie and scary movie. scary movie was stupid, and american pie wouldnt have done well without the sexual jokes. the only role, besides leon, that had some humor that followed was will ferrell. the character really was dumb and that was all, the dumb humor was all that had me watching. the movie was ok, and nothing else. i dont really understand why the snl people that are dying to leave the show always get a movie based on a character they played on the show. the skits last about 5 minutes, and if they can make a movie off a 5 minute skit, then what is the world coming to? molly shannon had superstar, cheri o'terri had scary movie, but she wasnt a leading role, and will had elf. but that was good, but he did some dumb movie, but i cant remember, and mike myers with wayne's world. how come the mad tv crew dont ever get movie deals? seen only one guy break through, but only in like 2 movies and a tv show with andy dick. but that guy relies on comedy for his life to continue, funny or not. this movie is not good, but had some positive humor. what a waste of film and people's money. (D D-) | 0 |
train_15849 | I have yet to read Shirley Jackson's novel, something of which I've been meaning to do for quite sometime. I am sure it has got to be scarier than this film. I remember jumping once when I watched it the other day, although I cannot recall the scene. The special effects are great and I watched this on DVD, but I am sure in the theatre it must have been an awesome sight. After the first few special effects are done with I was waiting for a story to develop.I figured this movie at the least has to be loosely based on the classic novel, so a good story should be there, but it wasn't. I was relegated to staring at the gorgeous Catherine Zeta-Jones character throughout the movie basically because there was nothing much else to watch. Lili Talor was such a suck character. I did not like her one bit, something about whiny people. Also, the guy in this film reminded me of the cartoonish Dudley DoRight with his voice and face. I could not relate to the characters at all. Quigon, ahem Liam Neeson did an admirable job trying to get through this movie with some type of acting.Half to three quarters of the way I was just dying to go see a campy Friday the 13th or a Scream Queenish film! At least there is some type of entertainment value. If there is no story there at least they fill it up with gory deaths or attractive females. This had nothing. | 0 |
train_23503 | How do I begin? This movie is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen .It has no redeemable qualities .I just sat through this movie and it was a struggle.It failed to get even a single smile on my face.I find it hard to believe that anyone would distribute this horrible film. I felt that this movie was a failed attempt at distasteful humor. The only thing that was worth anything about this movie was the soundtrack, I'm pretty sure thats the reason I wanted to see this movie in the first place.I will wrap this up as I am going to try and forget the time I just wasted with this piece of crap. I will leave you with this warning. DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM ,IT SUCKS. | 0 |
train_22470 | People who actually liked Problem Child (1990) need to have their heads examined. Who would take the idea of watching a malevolent little boy wreak havoc on others and deem it funny? The movie is not funny, ever, in any way, beginning to end. It wants to be a cartoon, but the writers don't realize that slapstick isn't funny when people get attacked by bears, or hit with baseball bats. It may be funny in cartoons, but not in a motion picture.The film's young hero is Junior (Michael Oliver) who, since he was a baby, has been placed at the front doors of foster parents for adoption. The families reject him, because Junior tends to give them a hard time.He is then thrown into an orphanage, where he terrorizes the nuns, and writes pen pal letters to the convicted Bow-Tie Killer (Michael Richards). He is soon adopted by Ben and Flo Healy (the late John Ritter and his wife, Amy Yasbeck), who are dying to have a child, in order to be just like every other parent in their neighborhood.Junior becomes a member of the Healy household, and "Little" Ben takes an interest in him, despite the fact that he destroys a camping trip by luring a bear onto the site, or throws a cat at his father "Big" Ben (Jack Warden), a bigoted politician.I think that we're supposed to care for Junior so that we can root for him when he gets his revenge on people. His new mother, Flo, is a bitch, his grandfather is completely selfish, and one little girl--who despises adopted kids--is such a spoiled brat.But what Junior does to get the last laughs isn't funny- -it's mean, cruel, and sometimes life-threatening.And what is the film's message? That kids should resolve problems with violence and vandalism? That they should seek friendship by writing to convicted killers? They definitely don't what it's like to be a bad kid. Junior isn't a one--he's just a sadistic, little twerp. There used to be a time when it was bad for kids to beat up others. Now, everybody's laughing when Junior beats up kids with a baseball bat.It's a shame that this movie has been marketed as a "family comedy." What's worse is that Problem Child is rated PG. What was the MPAA thinking when they saw this? There's a lot of profanity and mean-spirited pranks here, that one may wonder about the dividing between the PG and the PG-13.Kids will enjoy this, but parents will be shocked at what is being depicted on screen. And to most people, Problem Child will be considered a "guilty pleasure" classic; a film that someone will shamefacedly admit to liking, even though the prevailing opinion, as put forth by more serious viewers, is that the movie is a piece of crap. | 0 |
train_22369 | Didn't care for the movie, the book was better. Does anyone know where it was filmed? *** this was my first visit to your site...just found the answer to my question. so now I look like a dummy, but I think I'll still submit my comments. and yes, British Columbia is lovely ***Or why they took it from its South Carolina Coastal setting?(this question stands) The place was essential to the fabric of the book and its change was part of my disappointment with the movie. Oh, I just read where I need to write at least ten lines. Here's my other main issue with the film. Kim Bassinger was too vapid and not at all what I pictured from the book. I know, the book was the book and the movie; well not so good. I found the character in the book much more empathetic. Also the book evoked rustic, almost primitive images of the monastery. While the "castle" in the film was much more visually impressive, it distorted the feel of the story and seemed at odds with the characters. | 0 |
train_17929 | The movie starts with a nice song Looks like a thriller, with Arbaaz Khan walking around in a suspicious way but then suddenly we are forced to a comedy With the routine stupid idiots like GOLMAAL with Tusshar, Sharman, Kunal and Rajpal acting like grown up kids Their scenes are quite funny first and then get boring There is a bored sub plot of Tanushree's brother being killed Towards the end the film tries to get serious with the villain kidnapping our heroes but here it gets even stupid Then a lengthy bashing bashing climax straight out of HERA PHERI and wait, there is also a long chase in Payal's houseThe film is so boring that it makes you fall asleepDirection by Priyan is very bad music(Pritam) is routine except the first songCinematography is bad, the film has a cheap look throughoutRajpal Yadav is good in his 1st scene where he goes to pay his rent and i was happy that the actor isn't loud and over the top like other films But No, He becomes his usual self and gets irritating most of the times Tusshar should not speak in a film, his dial delivery is terrible Sharman is the saving grace, He is the sole actor who acts very well in this film Kunal Khemmu tries hard in his first comic film as an adult, But doesn't impress much Tanushree is bad as always Arbaaz Khan gets less scope and is usual Payal is a non actress Murli Sharma is terrible | 0 |
train_15747 | I was seriously looking forward to seeing this film because it seemed truly promising from the coming attractions: Jim Carrey with Godlike powers was an idea that most definitely worked for me. As a huge fan, I was sure he'd be supremely in his element with such a promising premise, and what could go wrong? Yesterday, my bubble got burst big-time, boys and girls, because I saw the movie. The first act (where it's set up that he hates his life, he's a disgruntled employee and a majorly unhappy camper with an ax to grind against God) is serviceable, the second act (where he's summoned by God via telephone and receives Powers Almighty) is GREAT - Carrey gets to have fun with his new 'toys' and it's a pleasure to watch, really funny. But the third act is wretched beyond belief.The rot starts setting in after the dinner scene between Bruce and his girlfriend Grace (Jennifer Aniston, who comes off EXCEEDINGLY well in this movie considering her part is merely a plot device; even her NAME reeks of unsubtlety) - she thinks he's gonna pop 'the question' but instead, he tells her (on bended knee, yet) that he's finally getting his news anchor job, and isn't it so exciting?She doesn't think so. She wants him to marry her, see, so she winds up leaving him, see, even though she still LOVES him very much, see, and the rest of the film is spent banging us over the head with one pathetic, beyond-heavy-handed spiritual-sounding cliche after the next, until by the end I was praying, too. . .for it to be over. I didn't mind the lack of subtlety in the first two acts (one example - in the 2nd act, after he gets his powers, Bruce prances into the room singing "What if God were one of us, just a slob like one of us", blah blah blah), and I was even willing to overlook the amazing amount of contradictions being hurled at us (for openers, Morgan Freeman - a/k/a GOD - tells Bruce he can't violate anyone's free will but he does this, a lot). Those choices were forgivable - this is a Jim Carrey comedy, directed by Tom Shadyac - it aint The Remains of the Day. Or rather it was SUPPOSED to be a comedy. When the script writers lose track of that (in the dreaded act 3) and try to turn the proceedings into some sort of (gag) Message Movie, what we get instead is hell on earth. Bruce realizes the error of his selfish ways, he realizes that GRACE is his saving - have to say it - grace, and that his priorities in life had been severely misconstrued. All this could have been conveyed in a far less heavy-handed way, however. The film didn't have to go into the dumper to make these points. Unfortunately, the writers and Shadyac apparently had no idea how to resolve the story in any sort of clever, light-handed way, so they went the bang-'em-over-the-heads route in hopes that we wouldn't notice. They even tacked some surprisingly unfunny out-takes at the end, in the further hope that this would lessen the bad taste. It didn't work for me. | 0 |
train_16566 | In director Eric Stanze's 'ISOYC, IPOYG', three men are subjected to torture at the the hands of a woman that they have all sexually abused. The first victim is forced to eat his own crap, before being axed to death. The next bloke ends up with a bullet in the crotch after refusing to have anal sex with the first guy's corpse. But it's the third man who gets it the worst: he has to watch the heavily tattooed 'star' Emily Haack get naked and masturbate with a broom handle (oh, he also gets the handle shoved up his butt too!).And, unfortunately, so do we (get to see her masturbate, that isnot get a broom handle up our butts!).Yes, 'ISOYC, IPOYG' is one harsh viewing experience, not because of its relentless violence, but because Haack, who is obviously under the misguided notion that she has the body of a goddess (as opposed to that of a roadie for Metallica) constantly gets buck naked for the camera. It ain't a pretty sight.In addition to the non-stop nudity from an inked-up Haack, viewers also get to see dreadful direction from Stanze (who thinks that endless shots of tombstones and trees is entertaining stuff), some really bad acting, and a fat guy's penis.Strangely enough, I give 'ISOYC, IPOYG' a rating of 3/10, which is actually slightly higher than its current 2.9 average. That's one point for the messy axe attack (which, being a gore-hound, I actually enjoyed); one point for the bit where the fat guy gets his face pushed in chocolate mousse masquerading as feces (hilarious); and one point for the sheer nerve to suggest that this film might somehow be a sequel to Meir Zarchi's superior exploitation classic I Spit On Your Grave. | 0 |
train_21584 | This was the WORST movie I have ever seen! Molly (molly hall) could not act AT ALL! she had no emotion it was all blah blah blah like she was reading out of a boring text book. The smart kid and the kid who loves food (there names weren't worth remembering) were so annoying it drove me crazy.When ever the talked it was about some scientific thing or food. Mollys Dad didn't show enough emotion about his daughter missing. The police officer and Mollys dad said the same thing like four times. it was just horrible. Everything was repeated way to much. Beatrice should have had something bad happen to her for being so mean. I just wasted a moment in my life by watching this movie! | 0 |
train_10034 | I had few problems with this film, and I have heard a lot of criticisms saying it is overlong and overrated. True, it is over three hours long, but I was amazed that it goes by so quickly. I don't think it is overrated at all, I think the IMDb rating is perfectly decent. The film looks sumptuous, with gorgeous costumes and excellent effects, and the direction from James Cameron rarely slips from focus. Leonardo DiCaprio gives one of his best performances as Jack, and Kate Winslet is lovely as Rose. David Warner, a great actor, steals every scene he's in. The story is very rich in detail, and is hot on character development, obvious with the love story which is very moving when it needs to be, though in the first bit of the movie it is a little slow. The last hour is extremely riveting, and I will confess that I was on the edge of my seat, when the Titanic sank. I will also say that the last five minutes were very moving. The music score by James Horner was lovely, though I never was a huge fan of the song My Heart will Go On. The 1996 miniseries was good, but suffered from undeveloped scenarios and some historical inaccuracies. Overall, I give Titanic an 8.5/10. Bethany Cox. | 1 |
train_8756 | I caught this movie by accident on cable in the middle of it and had to rent it to see it's entirety and I'm glad I did. I was immediately drawn by the storyline and cared about the girls involved. Naive high school graduates, best friends since childhood, take a high school trip and are taken in by a con man named Nick who get them into serious trouble. They are used as sacrificial mules in a heroin smuggling ring. Taken in to custody the girls learn to cope with their incarceration while trying to find a way out of their trouble. Everything that they try to help themselves falls short when the Thai criminal justice system shows shortcomings and the girls end up in more trouble and lose the trust of their American lawyer "Yankee Hank". Hank gives up trying to defend them after he feels betrayed by Alice(Claire Dane). However, the Thai native wife of Hank smells a rat in the case and does some further foot work of investigation and finds out the girls really were victimized. The end of the movie when Alice does a selfless act to save Darlene (Beckinsale) had me in tears. I really enjoyed this movie and would recommend it. | 1 |
train_1546 | I saw this movie once in or close to its release year 36 years ago (1969). Although I can now only remember bits of it, I long to see it again. The parts I remember, rightly or wrongly, include Mustard gas in the trenches and Suzie Kendall as a German spy, offering some bloke sexual favours in the back of an enclosed truck to get military information from him. The music score was especially memorable and emotion stirring in the league of Gone With The Wind and I would love to hear it again. There must be some commercial or copyright reason why this movie is not available. Anyone know why? I doubt its anything to do with a lack of quality or interest. | 1 |
train_13592 | Well, I suppose the good news concerning William Winckler's 2001 opus, "The Double-D Avenger," is that it manages to unite three of Russ Meyer's mammarian marvels--Kitten Natividad, Haji and Raven de la Croix--in one picture. (I can only assume that Lorna Maitland, Tura Satana and Babette Bardot were busy the week they shot this thing...or else managed to see a copy of the script in advance!) The bad news, though (and there's plenty of it), is that this film--if it can even be called that, having been shot straight to video--is a complete misfire, a total abortion, an out-and-out atrocity, an absolute abomination, and truly one of the worst pictures that I have ever seen. Look no further for the lamest superhero movie ever made! The plot here, such as it is, deals with Kitten gaining superpowers after fellating the rare cockazilla plant in South America to cure her breast cancer (oy), and later battling a trio of megalunged bikini dancers back in L.A. Too bad that every lame boob joke trotted out falls completely (you should pardon the expression) flat, that there is ZERO actual nudity in the film at all (other than some old photos of Kitten in her heyday), and that some shaving cream and a papier-mache boulder are the sum total of the special FX. The Meyer gals here are a bit long in the tooth/saggy in the chest, to put it kindly, although Sheri Dawn Thomas, as bikini girl Ooga Boobies (!), does manage to, uh, stand out nicely. So why have I given this juvenile, unfunny, failed embarrassment of a movie 2 stars instead of 1? To be succinct: Joe Bob Briggs. His voice-over commentary in the special features of the DVD I just watched is absolutely hilarious, especially when he pulls out around 100 synonyms for the word "breast" from the 1,000+ on his Web site's "Canonical Hooters List." The man is a national treasure, and he manages to upgrade this skeet of a disc to coaster status! | 0 |
train_11609 | I saw this when it premiered and just re-watched it on IFC again. This is a great telling of the many possible stories about the immigrant farmworker population that came to Hawai'i to work the sugar plantations in the early 1900's. My grandparents were part of that migration; my parents were born on a Kohala plantation (Big Island) at the time setting of the movie. I moved to the Big Island over a year ago after living in California for over 30 years. I was surprised to see that many of the former cane growing lands are still undeveloped, with wild cane still growing, years after the plantations closed. I've heard many stories from my aunts and uncles who were kids growing up on the plantation. This movie helps to image those kinds of stories and memories. This story is more of an historical document than a romantic plot-driven movie. It leaves me shaking my head to read a review like ccthemovieman's. Some people just don't get it.I didn't recall that Youki Kudoh had the starring role, with which she did an incredible job. I recall her great performances in Jim Jarmusch's "Mystery Train" and in an Australian film, co- starring with Russell Crowe, "Heaven's Burning". Tamlyn Tomita did a great job with her pidgin English, especially for someone who didn't grow up in the Islands. I had forgotten that Toshiro Mifune had a cameo role as the moving picture show narrator. And I missed the fact that Jason Scott Lee had an uncredited, non-speaking part as one of the plantation workers during the payday scene. I was saddened to find out that the director and co-writer, Kayo Hatta, died in an accidental drowning in 2005. There are two other excellent foreign films that mirror this cane plantation experience: "Gaijin" about the immigrant cane workers in Brazil (many of them Japanese) in the same time period; and "Sugar Cane Alley" about the cane plantation experience in Africa. The latter is still available, but "Gaijin", sadly, doesn't appear to have been shown in quite a while. Another great film about the early Asian in America experience when immigrants were more like slaves is "A Thousand Pieces of Gold". This was set over the Chinese workers' involvement in the building of the railroad, starred Rosalind Chao, Chris Cooper, Michael Paul Chan, and Dennis Dun. | 1 |
train_12032 | The movie that i am going to review is a little television movie made in 1996 and it starred Melissa Joan Hart and Daniel Baldwin.The main protagonist/antagonist Jennifer Stanton (Hart) is a typical all American teenager who is feeling the pressure of having such a controlling father (Baldwin). However, when she meets an ex con called Nick Ryan (Jeremy Jordan "Never been kissed") they instantly 'fall' for each other, but Jennifer has a different idea on where to take their relationship. she manipulates him to kill her parents, to protect their 'love' but she just used him to get rid of her parents so she can be with Brad (David Lascher future 'Sabrina' cast mate for Hart). Melissa Joan Hart actually really surprised me with her role as an evil manipulator and she carries the movie well by using her friends and Nick so she can literally get away with murder. The rest of the supporting cast work well and they each hold their own when they have screen time. I also found it interesting that this film was made and released the same year, Hart, began portrayed Sabrina, the Teenage Witch and this shows she can act in my genres of film and television.Although the film has dated somewhat it stills stands out as some of her best work that involves drama or thriller and i am looking forward to 'Nine Dead' that comes out in November because it shows she can seen as other people that are not called "Clarissa Darling " or Sabrina Spellman"I recommend this film to anyone that is a fan of Melissa Joan Hart or Sabrina. You can watch this on the internet, so i suggest check it out. | 1 |
train_9516 | Tom Hanks like you've never seen him before. Hanks plays Michael Sullivan, "The Angel of Death". He is a hitman for his surrogate father John Rooney(Paul Newman)an elderly Irish mob boss. Sullivan's young son(Tyler Hoechlin)witnesses what his father does for a living and both are soon on the road for seven weeks robbing banks to avenge the murder of Sullivan's wife and other son. Enter Jude Law as a reporter/photographer willing to kill Sullivan himself for the chance to add to his collection of photos of dead mobsters. Filmed beautifully catching the drama of life in the 30's. Sometimes the pace bogs down, but then a burst of graphic violence sustains the story. Director Sam Mendes directs this powerful drama about loyalty, responsibility, betrayal and the bonding of a secretive man and his young son. Other notable cast members are: Dylan Baker, Stanley Tucci, Daniel Craig and Jennifer Jason Leigh. Hanks again proves to be excellent in a very memorable movie. Make room for some Oscars! | 1 |
train_5160 | Dr. McCoy and Mr. Spock find themselves trapped in a planet's past Ice Age, while Capt. Kirk is in the same planet's colonial period. However, it's the former pair that has the most trying time. Besides the freezing temperatures and sanctuary to be found only in caves, there is a third inhabitant, the beautiful and so sexy Zarabeth (Mariette Hartley). As Spock spends more time in this era, he slowly begins to revert to the behavioral patterns of his ancestors, feeling a natural attraction to Zarabeth and throwing "caution to the wind" about ever leaving this place. Only with Dr. McCoy's constant "reminders" does Spock hold on to some grasp of reality.This stand as one of the few times when the character gets to show some "emotion" and Nimoy (Spock) plays it to the hilt, coming close to knocking the bejesus out of Deforest Kelly (McCoy). Surprising to previous installment, Captain Kirk (William Shatner) wasn't allowed to get the girl, another plus for this one.Perennial "old man" Ian Wolfe assays the role of "Mr. Atoz," the librarian responsible for sending the trio into the past. | 1 |
train_11848 | Well, what can I say, this movie really got to me, it's not so bad, as many say, I really loved it, although the idea seems so simple, and rather boring, it isn't. First of all I enjoyed the soundtrack (Bryan Adams), it really goes with the movie. Second the simple story, and the drama of Spirit gets your attention. One thing I like the most is that they didn't give the stallion a human voice to interact with the other horses, it makes the movie more realistic, not many animations seem realistic now do they ?, but... I don't know, making animals talk is just so... lame.One of the most beautiful animations of 2002 in my opinion, I recommend it to everyone, not just the kids :), because it is very relaxing. | 1 |
train_9754 | This Raggedy Ann and Andy Movie is so adorable. We love watching Ann and Andy sing and dance, along with the camel with the wrinkled knees. This movie is what made the Camel with the Wrinkled Knees so popular, singing his song, "I'm nobodies I Love You". If you love Raggedy Ann and Andy Watch the movie and you will see why it's a movie the kids love, and adults! | 1 |
train_14117 | What an unusual movie.Absolutely no concessions are made to "Hollywood special effects" or entertainment. There is no background music, not special effects or enhanced sound.Facial expressions are usually covered by thick beards and the Spanish language is a strange monotonic lilt that sounds the same whether in the midst of a battle or talking around a campfire.I sort of viewed these movies (parts 1 and 2) as an educational experience, not really something to go and get entertained by. Its quite long and in places dull.But I suspect that given the lack of any plot development, I don't think its very educational either.Its also difficult to perceive any story from the movie dialogue - it would be a good idea to read up a little on the history so that you can understand the context of what is happening, since for some reason the director didn't see fit to inform the audience why Che's band was moving around the way they did - as a result there seem to be groups skulking around the woodland for no particular reason and getting shot at.I would have loved to give this movie more stars for somehow generating more empathy with me and developing depth of character, but somehow all of the characters were still strangers to me at the end. The stars it gets are for realism and showing the hardships of guerrilla warfare. | 0 |
train_2644 | I don't know what it is I find so endearing about this film, but the first time I saw it, I wanted to see how it ended. I'm not a big fan of Paul Winfield nor of war-dramas, but I was truly wondering just how and when Winfield would find his child. All he knows is that the boy has green eyes. Truth be told, I have not seen this movie in years nor has it been shown on TV in a while, but this movie is somewhat of one man's odyssey after the pains of war. Winfield shows a very sympathetic and heart warming portrayal of a man lost by his memories. There is an underlying message in this movie that he is looking for the last shred of human morality in the aftermath of this war and the reality that he does confront. Why this movie is not yet on DVD or video is a mystery to me. | 1 |
train_854 | "Margaritas and Cock..."This tremendously entertaining film grabs you from the opening scene and never stops delivering laughs, surprises and unexpectedly touching moments. I had more fun watching "The Matador" than almost any other film from 2005. It is a wacky film with an unforgettable character, played to perfection by Pierce Brosnan.Julian Noble (Brosnan) is a facilitator (hit-man) who specializes in high-end corporate gigs (assassinating rich dudes). He is also experiencing something akin to a mid-life crisis. After coming to realization that he has no real friends, no permanent home and no planned future, he stumbles into a Mexican hotel bar one night and runs into Danny Wright (Kinnear).Danny is a down-on-his-luck family man who is on the verge of losing the big business deal that just might turn things around for him. He loves his wife dearly, especially so since they lost their young son a few years earlier.The two men are chalk and cheese, hardly any common ground other than that they are in the same desolate bar one night. And somehow a conversation is struck that sets in to motion a chain of events that will change their lives forever.The friendship they form reminded me a lot of Laurel and Hardy. One is the straight man and the other is the persistent fool who gets them into trouble. The interplay is superbly timed and finely tuned, due in no small part to the wonderful performances from Brosnan and Kinnear.But make no mistake... This is Brosnan's film. He imprints one of the most memorable and despicably likable characters of the decade. He could shoot your mother and apologize immediately thereafter and you'd probably forgive him. Brosnan may be cinema's ultimate charmer, but this is his most endearing and complete performance to date. I wouldn't be averse to seeing an Oscar nod for this role.Consider one scene where he overtly ogles a high-school girl with the impurest of thoughts and utters the line, "All blushy blushy... No sucky fucky". He does it with the familiar Bond smirk and manages to get away with it. He manages to tell a young boy, "Tell your mother to lose 30lbs and 20 years. Then get back to me" without coming across as unlikable. In fact, it makes us like him even more.And yet the film manages to surprise us with some truly touching scenes, most of which come toward the end when the film takes some unpredictable turns. However, when Julian thumbs through his little black book to find someone to call on his birthday, or when Danny and his wife (Davis) console each other in their bedroom one night, the film reaches an unexpected depth of emotion."The Matador" is stylish and energetic. It is constantly entertaining. And it contains a career-defining role for Brosnan as the lonely hit-man looking for normalcy, friendship and a means to do at least one good thing in his life. This is an overlooked gem in 2005 and you should make an effort to see this film as soon as possible.TC Candler of IndependentCritics.com | 1 |
train_22977 | I would highly recommend seeing this movie. After viewing it, you will be able to walk out of every other bad movie EVER saying "at least it wasn't The Omega Code."Forget my money, I want my TIME back! | 0 |
train_679 | This supernatural Peter Weir thriller is truly one of the most haunting and fascinating movies ever seen. Richard Chamberlain does his best performance here as the Australian lawyer who defends a group of young Aborigins accused of murder. As he gets closer on the case, he discovers more about the main defendant, Chris, and not least about himself. Chris tells him that he is a Mulkurul, which appear to be a race of supernatural beings that lived in Australia thousands of years ago. At the same time, extraordinary high rainfall seems to confirm the Aboriginal prophecy of the coming of the LAST WAVE, the one that will drown the world.The dream sequences and the supernatural effects enhance this movie and make it a spectacular experience. Olivia Hamnett and David Gulpilil are solid in the supporting roles, as well as the chap with the difficult name who plays Charlie, the old Aborigin who can turn into an owl. The climax and the ending don't disappoint, in contrast to many other supernatural thrillers who fall flat after a promising hour or so. However, this can not be called a pure thriller. It is a drama as well and talks about spirituality and spiritual identity in the modern world. A masterful work by Peter Weir, the master of visually stunning dramas. | 1 |
train_19721 | ....CAUSE IT'S CRAP! The kind of movie that makes you want to go and smack the movie maker and say "WHY?". Horrible camera work...count the times the camera tries to remain steady on one person and can't. The dialog is ridiculous. The acting is comical. It looks like they took over a ghost town in the west to see if they could make a movie on the least amount of money possible. I'd bet $10 they used home video cameras to make this. Either that, or most of the cameramen were drunk. Truly the trailers are more entertaining than the movie. If you ever want to host a "Worst Movie Party", bring this one. Want more entertainment...stare at a wall. | 0 |
train_6508 | I grew up watching Scooby and have been a fan forever. This cartoon moves away from the same old routine that can get boring to viewers. The Crooks in Mask routine gets old and This cartoon is a change from that. It's not meant to replace the Scooby gang it's just a break from the same old crime scene for both viewers and writers I'm sure. The cartoon's focus is on Scooby and Shaggy who inherits a large sum of money and use that money to thwart world conquest plans from a mad scientist and his goons. Small homages of the gang and the gang themselves are featured from time to time. If you are a fan of Scooby-Doo you can still appreciate the bond between a boy and his talking dog, along with the jokes that come with it. Just Enjoythe Cartoon and support the creators/writers and producers so that this won't be the last Scooby Cartoon. | 1 |
train_21683 | If there were a movie that deserved a 0 out of 10, this would be it. 'House of the Dead' redefines the term "bad movie". Other bad movies, such as 'When A Stranger Calls' or 'Premonition', will actually look much better when compared to 'House of the Dead'. The basic "plot" of House of the Dead is a group of twenty-somethings travel to a remote island to attend the "rave of the century". When they get there, they only find some tents, a bar, a stage, and some bloody t-shirts. They decide to stay anyway, and they are soon attacked by zombies.There is absolutely nothing redeeming about this movie. It is not entertaining. Instead, it is painful to watch because of how terrible it is. The acting is unbelievably bad. In a DVD interview, one of the actors claimed that Uwe Boll, the director, is not afraid to tell someone when they are doing a good job or a bad job in a scene. This is a blatant lie. The script appears to have been written by an 11-year-old, who decided to include a scene of someone throwing up on a girl's chest and to include the hilarious line, "it smells like someone farted out here." The characters have no personality or depth and they do some of the most moronic things ever seen in a horror movie. Somewhere along the way, the characters also magically transform into a SWAT team to take down the zombies. It's like they don't even have to aim their guns and they automatically shoot the zombies in the head.The scariest thing by far about this movie is the directing. There is something wrong with Uwe Boll. Boll's camera work is astonishingly disjointed. His pans to zombies running through the forest are more silly than menacing. Worse yet, Boll actually thought it would be a good idea to include small bits of footage from the House of the Dead video game into the movie. Quite often, and at the most random times, you will suddenly see an animated zombie getting shot. It makes no sense. No one in their right mind would think that was a good idea. It's like Boll wants to remind us repeatedly that this movie is supposed to be based on the video game. Uwe Boll also decided it would be cool to include slow motion 360 degree rotating shots during the action scenes, a la 'The Matrix'. Unfortunately, he does it way too often and each shot is nauseating. The soundtrack to this movie also boggles the mind. Most action scenes are accompanied by loud rap track. This also adds to the ensuing headaches caused by the atrocious 'House of the Dead'.'House of the Dead' isn't bad because it's based on a video game. In fact, it has very little to do with the video game. It also does not fit into the category of 'so bad that it's good'. It does however fit into the category of 'so bad that it's painful'. This movie just plain sucks. Uwe Boll should never be let anywhere near another movie set. Even his presence will curse a production. To all the directors out there: whenever one of your movies gets a bad review, all you have to do is remember that you didn't make 'House of the Dead' and you will feel much better. I will never get those 90 minutes of my life back. To sum it up, words really cannot describe just how bad this movie is. Everyone involved in the production of this film, especially Uwe Boll, should be ashamed of themselves. Although what I have said may make 'House of the Dead' sound funny, it really isn't. Nothing about it is funny. Avoid this at all costs. | 0 |
train_7111 | ***SPOILERS*** On of the first WWII movies coming out of Hollywood that shows how the war effected those GI's, or in this case US Marines, who fought in it.21 year old Al Schmid, John Garfield, was just starting to live with a well paying job-earning some $40.00 a week-at the local steel mill and girl Ruth Hartley, Elenore Parker, whom he was about to marry when the Japs spoiled everything for him, and millions of likewise young Americans, by attacking the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor. Doing his duty as an American citizen Al immediately joined the US Marine Corps hoping to get back at the Japs knowing, correctly as it was to turn out, that the Marines would be the first American combat units to get a crack at them.Al finally got his chance when his unit, the 1st Marine Division, landed on August 7, 1942 at Guadalcanal in the far flung Solomon Islands to engage the Japanese who were were in control of it. It was during the battle of the Ilu River that Al almost single handed stopped a massive Japanese Banzai attack holding off, with his machine gun, wave after wave of suicide attacks by the determined Japs until help, or reinforcements, finally arrived. It was during the bloody fighting Al was hit in the face by a Jap grenade that ended up blinding him.Now back in the states convalescing at a naval hospital Al is faced with something far more harder to overcome then battling a battalion size attack of Japanese or German soldiers. He's faced with a future where he'll never see again and having to depend on others to look after, or for, him!We get to see in the film "Pride of the Marines" Al battle himself far harder then he did the Japanese troops on Guadalcanal in just coming to terms with his disability. Not wanting anyone, especially his girlfriend Ruth, to feel sorry for him Al in fact is the one who feels sorry for himself more then anyone else in the movie. It's with the help of Navy Nurse Virginia Pfeiffer, Rosemary DeCamp, and Ruth together with his US Marine buddy Lee Diamond, Dane Clark, that in the end gives Al the courage to face his blindness with the same strength that he faced wave after wave of Japanese troops on Gudalcanal. A courage Al thought he lost back in that God-forsaken island hell in the South Pacific.Based on the true story of US Marine Sergeant Albert Schmid "Pride of the Marines" showed what we were to expect from the tens of thousands of wounded US Servicemen coming back from the war. We get to see how it in many ways was far more difficult for those fighting the war to adjust to a peacetime America when they left something, like in the case of Al Schmid, behind on the battlefield. Al's battle with his personal demons was a lot harder then the Japanese that he fought in that they were part of him and thus had to fight himself in order to overcome and eventually defeat them. Despite the help that he got from both Nurse Virginia and his girlfriend Ruth as well as his Navy doctor-who has a striking resemblance to actor Gregory Peck-it still was up to Al to overcome the fears that he faced. Fears which he and only he had to both battle and overcome, like he was told by everyone in the movie, all by himself. | 1 |
train_10407 | The story-line of "The Thief of Bagdad" is complex, owing to its being told in flashbacks and having three separate and equally important strands woven together. The screenplay by Lajo Biros and the dialogue by Miles Malleson keep the story moving skillfully at all points.The young King Ahmad of Bagdad is angry at his vizier Jaffar for executing a man for having different ideas. He discovers while in disguise that people blame him for Jaffar's deeds and hate him. He is imprisoned by Jaffar, where he meets Abu the young thief. The two escape and take a boat to the city of Basra. There the companions spy when men clear the way so none will see the Princess of the city passing by. Ahmad falls in love with her and visits her in her garden. He tells her he has come to her from beyond time and wins a kiss. Then he is captured. When Jaffar comes to win the Princess of Basra for himself, Ahmad attacks the evil vizier who blinds him and turns Abu into a dog. Jaffar then asks for the Princess's hand, and he gives the gift of a mechanical flying horse to the Sultan of Basra. The blind Ahmad then tells his tale in the marketplace, accompanied by Abu as his dog. The Prince has fallen into a sleep and nothing can wake her. So Jaffar sends his servant Halima for Ahmad and the dog, in hopes the prince can rouse her. He does awaken her. She boards a ship to find a doctor to cure Ahmad, but she is captured by Jaffar who then throws the dog overboard. She then allows Jaffar to take her in his arms, on his promise to restore Ahmad's sight and turn Abu back into a thief. The princess sees a vision of Ahmad; he is in a boat; Jaffar sends a storm to beset him and Abu is shipwrecked on a deserted island. Abu finds a genie or djinn who wants to kill him now that he is free after many centuries spent imprisoned in a bottle. Abu tricks him into proving he really came from so small a vessel, then corks him in again. For freeing him, he gets three wishes. His first is for sausages. In the meanwhile, the Princess pleads with her father to refuse Jaffar; but Jaffar shows the Sultan a new mechanical toy, one of whose six arms stabs him to death. Abu makes a second wish, to find Ahmad. The cunning genie flies him to the goddess of the All-Seeing eye. Abu has to climb a great web to get to the gem that is the eye, battling a giant spider, then scaling the goddess's statue. Abu gazes into the 'eye' and sees Ahmad in a canyon. He has the genie take him to Ahmad. Ahmad uses the eye to see the princess. She smells a flower and forgets everything at once. Abu wishes they were in Bagdad, but the genie laughs and leaves; Jaffar tells the Princess that she is in love with him, omitting mention of Ahmad. Ahmad tries to fight his way to the Princess, but Jaffar smashes the 'eye'. Abu finds himself in the "Land of Legend", where the old men who rule want to make him their king. He steals a bow and a magic carpet and escapes instead, to hurry to save Ahmad and the princess. The thief arrives in time to save the young king from the executioner, using his bow from the flying carpet, to the wonder of the throng who had come to watch the execution. Jaffar tries to flee on the mechanical flying horse, but another shot from the bow finishes him. Ahmad is ruler again and plans to wed his Princess; but when he tries to make Abu his vizier, the young thief refuses, saying that what he wants is adventure, not hard work and confinement in a palace however grand it may be. This fantastic story was given a sumptuous production by producer Alexander Korda. The production was designed by Vincent Korda who was also art director, while Georges Perinal did the colorful cinematography. The directors credited are Ludwig Berger and Michael Powell, with Tim Whelan, Alexander Korda, William Cameron Menzies and Zoltan Korda participating. The extraordinary and numerous costumes designs were the work of John Armstrong, Oliver Messel and Marcel Vertes. The production, apart from its gorgeous and expensive-looking visual splendors, I claim is dominated by two other elements, the choral music of Miklos Rozsa and the performance by Conrad Veidt as the evil Jaffar. Rex Ingram plays the genie with a curious accent, plus his usual intelligence and power. June Duprez is lovely and effective as the Princess Mary Morris is a sad and beautiful Halima, and Miles Malleson a properly bumbling and avaricious Sultan. As Ahmad, John Justin appears to do most of what can be done with the part of a young prince in love and then some; he is memorably good in his winning role. This film has a spaciousness about it that is found, I assert, in other Korda works also. Its imaginative content stands in contrast to very-strong realistic sets, costumes and set-design elements. This is one of the most memorable idea-level fantasies of all time, worthy to be enjoyed over and over. | 1 |
train_19201 | I have been an environmentalist for years and was really looking forward to this show. I had it set to record all episodes because I thought I could really learn some great new things. I probably could if I could get past Rachelle.I'm sure a lot of this is staged to seem like a reality show and appeal to that class of viewer. It doesn't work for someone who's really interested in improving the planet.This show should be called Nagging with Rachelle.Since Ed is such a great font of information, maybe a second show that's really serious about the environment would be a good idea. Dumbing things down is not necessary for some of us. I no longer record episodes or watch the show, but do let me know if a real green show may be in the works. | 0 |
train_1746 | Bela Lugosi gets to play one of his rare good guy roles in a serial based upon the long running radio hit (which was also the source of a feature film where Lugosi played the villain.) Lugosi cuts a fine dashing figure and its sad that he didn't get more roles where he could be the guy in command in a good way. Here Chandu returns from the East in order to help the Princess Nadji who is being hunted by the leaders of the cult of Ubasti who need her to bring back from the dead the high priestess of their cult. This is a good looking globe trotting serial that is a great deal of fun. To be certain the pacing is a bit slack, more akin to one of Principals (the producing studios) features then a rip roaring adventure, but it's still enjoyable. This plays better than the two feature films that were cut from it because it allows for things to happen at their own pace instead of feeling rushed or having a sense that "hey I missed something". One of the trilogy of three good serials Lugosi made, the others being SOS Coast Guard and Phantom Creeps | 1 |
train_16651 | This is probably the best horror film made since Ed Wood died. I can't spoil the ending, because I have absolutely no idea what happened. I'll try my best, though. There are some kind of lesbian vampires, but they keep swapping bodies, so any character might or might not be the character you're supposed to think it is, or it might be a lesbian vampire. Sound confusing? It's not as confusing as you might think, since none of the characters make any sense to begin with. There's no plot, no character development, and random people show up, speak a few lines, and then disappear, never to be heard from again. There are also zombies, who are *possibly* the enemies of the vampires, but there's also a dream-within-a-dream kind of sequence in a mental hospital, so maybe none of this actually happened, and it's all the main character's hallucination. The upside? Both of the lead girls take their shirts off briefly. The special effects are simply mind-boggling (I particularly liked the incredibly slow, awkward fight sequences). Everyone has a really silly Canadian accent, which adds to the general level of hilarity. Well worth the price of rental. We laughed until we cried. | 0 |
train_15963 | I saw this movie the other night and I have to honestly say it's one of the worst films I've ever seen. The acting is fair, but the plot is totally ridiculous. A killer is born because of all the "energy used to make the movie" and if the film is burned the killer will die? How unbelievable is that? The characters were underdeveloped to say the least...for example, all of a sudden the man mentions "Aren't you trying to complete the film because your mother couldn't?" So we're supposed to go along with this? We had no idea it was her daughter until half way through the film. The movie really didn't spotlight on anyone, we didn't know anything about the main people who survived except Ringwald's character was a whiney actress, the guy was on the set when the people died and Raffy wanted to be a director like her mother. Not truly diving in to know who they are. Seemed things were rushed to just get to the killings. The whole plot is entirely too weak for my taste and I was extremely disappointed. Anyone who enjoyed this piece of crap, obviously needs to learn a thing or two about film making. I can't believe anyone would agree to star or even work on this picture. It's not funny, it was not scary and was cliche through the entire film. I found myself predicting what would happen before each scene, which believe you me wasn't hard at all to do. It's a disgrace and I'm deeply sorry I wasted an hour and a half watching the mess. 1/10. | 0 |
train_18211 | National Treasure is about as over-rated and over-hyped as they come. Nicholas Cage is in no way a believable action hero, and this film is no "Indiana Jones". People who have compared this movie to the Indian Jones classic trilogy have seriously fallen off their rocker.I can't really figure out what kind of target audience this film was shooting for. Maybe the pre-teen audience will like it, but I found it to be absolutely ludicrous. I also can't imagine adults or young adults to find this to be that great of a film. Simply put: it's just OK at best.National Treasure is unimagined and uninspired, borrowing what it does have from "The Da Vinci Code". I would recommend waiting for that movie to be released in 2006, and passing on this nonsense.The whole idea of being able to so easily steal the Declaration of Independence and run around all over Washington DC and Philadelphia with it (while never damaging it once), while fighting the "bad guys" and experiencing what is supposed to be "non-stop action" is absurd. I particularly loved the scene with the Declaration folded in its tube laying in the middle of a busy road while cars whiz by it without damaging it. Oh brother! Reminded me of that episode of the "Brady Bunch" where they go to the amusement park and Mr. Brady loses his architectural plans. Except, that episode of the Brady Bunch was much better than this whole film! The idea of such huge treasure that nobody believes exists being buried within a secret ruin of the US is outlandish. Literally, there are thousand of undiscovered "priceless" items in this treasure trove. Yeah right!! Ridiculous!! Even worse, the speed and accuracy of which Cage finds and figures out what are supposed to be "tough" clues to these ancient riddles are pre-posterous!!! Oh.. the humanity! The performances by Cage, Voight, and the other actors in "National Treasure" are as stiff ,wooden, and flat as they come. However, when you're working with such lousy dialogue, it's hard to fault the actor's 100% for that.National Treasure is an OK film to see once. I can't recommend it beyond that and would definitely NOT purchase this over the top, outlandish scavenger hunt of a mess.Rent it if you must see it first....... | 0 |
train_5142 | It's easy to make really general comments about a film like this. The fact that it's one of the only remaining Japanese films from this era causes people to say that it "started Japanese cinema" and was "unlike anything the west ever made." The latter of these two comments is particularly false as Kinugasa himself admitted to ripping off "Caligari" on more than one occasion. But style was meant to be imitated, and doesn't take away from this film's importance. What we have here is experimental themes and composition built on already established visual styles, opening the doors for a truly brilliant layering of narratives and realities. For this purpose, the madhouse is the ideal setting, and the writers knew this. This is a landmark film, and every effort should be made to track it down.5 out of 5 - Essential | 1 |
train_19139 | It's very sad that Lucian Pintilie does not stop making movies. They get worse every time. Niki and Flo (2003) is a depressing stab at the camera. It's unfortunate that from the many movies that are made yearly in Romania , the worst of them get to be sent abroad ( e.g. Chicago International Film Festival). This movie without a plot , acting or script is a waste of time and money. Score: 0.02 out of 10. | 0 |
train_15132 | It saddens me to rate a movie with a lot of my favorite actors, locations and genres, i.e. Douglas, Sutherland, Washington, D.C. and political thriller, but 'The Sentinel' really hits a low. It's like they had a great idea up front, signed the right cast and had some great city shots and then took a holiday letting the remaining crew improvise the rest. And I wish I could blame it on yet another bland performance from Basinger (not only do I feel she's one of the worst actors in Hollywood, but I'm still steaming more than a decade later that she was the only one, and definitely the only bad actor in the film, to win an acting Oscar for 'L.A. Confidential.') But she wasn't the only problem. Sutherland, who I love as Jack Bauer on '24' once again plays
Jack. I miss his old 'A Time to Kill' or 'A Few Good Men' days. Douglas certainly took a hiatus from acting and phoned this one in. Plot: Someone, some Secret Service traitor, wants the President dead and Douglas is (haphazardly) being framed. Will someone believe him? Actually, no spoiler here: as quickly as they came up with that subplot half-way through, it's over before you know it. And why did someone(s) want the President dead? Is that to be revealed in the sequel? Too many plot holes, too many doors opened and never closed and too predictable 'The Sentinel' is. If you only see one movie a year, you may not know who the mole is, but anyone who's familiar with these types of movies or even just seen one 'Law & Order' episode you'll know in the first few frames. Was it terrible? Not really, the cinematography was good, and despite Sutherland playing Jack again, he's still got it. | 0 |
train_7540 | I enjoyed this movie quite a lot. I have always been a fan of Whoopi Goldberg and this movie only emphasizes it. She portrays a housewife in an African-American family which is moving up the social chain due to the husband's (Danny Glover) success as an attorney. She moves to an all white neighborhood where the people are friendly, yet a little awkward toward her. The various events that arise during the course of the movie make for SOME laughs but mostly appeal to the other emotions. This movie is not so much a comedy as a drama. I give it a strong 8/10. I highly recommend you catch it on TV or rent it soon. | 1 |
train_5957 | The title says it all.I'm not a film critic nor will I act like the rest of the snobbish people commenting on this movie.Obviously this movie didn't have a multi-million dollar budget, but the plot was very well done, the acting was awesome and the cinematography was great! It looked like you all had a lot of fun making this movie! I voted 9 out of 10 as the sound was strong on only one channel instead of both, but I imagine this might have been an error in the recording of the DVD.I'll definitely be checking out other movies produced by Brain Damage Films! Dylan O'Leary, cast and crew, I thank you! | 1 |
train_13940 | Swayze doesn't make a very convincing Alan Quatermain. Compared to Stewart Granger; which growing up was my ultimate hero in films like the 1952 "Scaramouche", the 1952 "Prisoner of Zenda" and the 1950 "King Solomon's Mines"; Patrick Swayze fails utterly. Even the portrayal of an older Alan Quatermain by Sean Connery in "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" was very good in an otherwise big flop. Also Alison Doody lacks the grace of Deborah Kerr in the role of the leading lady, and last but not least the impressive Siriaque in the role of Umbopa makes it very hard for anyone to fill his (shoes)!!! For someone who was disappointed by Richard Chamberlain's 1985 version, I now highly recommend it if you can't get your hand on the granger version. | 0 |
train_19611 | - A newlywed couple move into the home of the husband's dead former wife. It's not long before the new wife begins to have the feeling that someone doesn't want her in the house. She sees skulls all around the house. But when the husband investigates, he can't find anything. Is someone trying to drive her back to the asylum that she was recently discharged from? Or, is the ghost of the dead wife trying to get the new wife out of her house? - This is the first time that I've watched The Screaming Skull without the assistance of the MST3K crew. And, it will in all likelihood be the last time I watch it this way. Can you say dull? I'm not talking ordinary dull - I'm talking watching grass grow dull. There are great stretches of the movie where nothing happens. The screen could have gone blank and I would have gotten as much entertainment out of it. The characters drone on and on with the most monotonous conversations imaginable. The Screaming Skull could probably be marketed as a sleep aide.- The actors don't help matters much. Most of them deliver lines with the conviction normally reserved for a grade school play. I haven't looked it up, but I would be shocked to find that anyone associated with this movie ever appeared in anything of cinematic value. I won't even go into the script the actors are given to work with. Let's just say that the characters are given some of the most idiotic lines ever uttered on film.- You've been warned! Either avoid this one at all costs or, at least, seek out the MST3K version. | 0 |
train_24875 | The good thing about this that's at least fresh: Almost no movies about dance music and the club scene (if even made) hit the cinemas. And it radiates lots of energy too, from the music to the portrayal of Ibiza.But the main problem is that it can't decide what it wants to be. Although it definitely likes to be a mockumentary in the line of This is Spinal Tap, the makers also realized they wouldn't want to play copycat. However, it fails grossly on the jokes because it's not very well written and most characters are underdeveloped. And it has no arc in its script and directing to make it to 90 minutes, so why not edit it down to 75? The production department and cinematography still try to save the day (e.g. Paul's home).In a strange way and unexpectedly so It's all gone Pete Tong works much better as a simple drama in the line of Almost Famous. Especially the scenes with Beatriz Batarda offer some acting power.Conclusion: it's a mess, it somewhat entertains at a basic level, but you better spend a night in your favorite club. | 0 |
train_2159 | First, there is NO way the remake can be as good, because Japanese society is quite different from ours and plays such a major part in this film, as explained in the opening narration. It adds to the humor as well as warmth of this movie. There is slew of different supporting characters/personalities. Each does there part in making this movie wonderful. This movie is full of comedy that isn't vulgar in anyway like most of today's "gross-out comedies." Yet it can still have you laughing out loud. The reality is, in real life, you don't have a choice of who you work with or go to school with...etc. This movie truly emphasizes that and shows that the natural good in people can overcome petty differences. Not to mention, it makes for a great sub-plot and much of the humor. This is a story about dance that actually has a story, and a good one at that. There are a few back stories that are not out of place, but actually support the main storyline. Truly a well written film. The dancing is great, too. I happen to be a fan of any movie with dancing of any sort, for that aspect. However, this movie goes beyond any other with dance, in the fact that, it is a story First and just happens to be written about dancing in Japanse society. Highly recommended.10 out of 10. | 1 |
train_12908 | Other than some neat special effects, this movie has nothing to offer. They threw in some gore and some nudity to try and make it interesting, but with no success. Kevin Bacon's acting was pretty good, but he couldn't salvage the movies lack of plot. | 0 |
train_24568 | A family of terrible people must remain in a house for a week or else they will lose their inheritance which will go to the servants who will only get their inheritance if they agree to stay on and keep the house in order. People die (and so will you if you try to sit through this) If you've ever had any desire to see bad actors- many with ill fitting dentures-act or attempt to act in a bad horror movie this is your chance. This is just awful. Its so bad I thought Al Adamson, one of the worst directors ever, directed it, but I was wrong.Its so bad I don't want to say anything more about it, not because it isn't polite but because once I start I may not be able to stop.avoid | 0 |
train_14888 | No one should ever try to adapt a Tom Robbins book for screen. While the movie is fine and the performances are good, the dialogue, which works well reading it, is crap when spoken. Or, to put it another way, no one would be likely to suggest that hearing someone else's name was like seeing it written in radium on a pearl.Overall, the movie feels like a badly-adapted Cliffs Notes to the book - most of the parts have been hacked down to a fifth of their size in the book, in terms of backstory and current story, and the ending is wildly (and unpleasantly) different from that of the book. Most of the plots from the book have gotten lost, including the one that makes everything make sense at the end, and there's more than one reference that makes sense in the book that makes the viewer say "Huh?" Not a worthy effort, unfortunately - the script should have been read, compared to the book, burned, and all the actors sent off to do something far better. I admire Gus Van Sant tremendously, but not even someone of his calibre could have made a decent movie of such a complex book without making a miniseries. | 0 |
train_1691 | This movie is funny and suitable for any age. It is definitely family-type entertainment. The cast does a fine job playing folks in the mid-western town of Big Bean, Illinois. Where we must assume nothing ever happens since the excitement (pre-invasion) of the decade is the new (and only) exit ramp from the Interstate. The location appeals as suitably boring and totally unlikely for the invasion of earth by Martians. But these Martians are totally inept, despite being well-equipped with an arsenal of suitably ghastly and deadly weapons... including one set on eradicating the Martians, too! The Martians dead-pan their lines and throw in just the right accents to make us the viewers and the locals wish to help them... leave earth. J. J. Anderson playing the very young Halloween carnivorous duck has just great lines. Watch this movie for laugher and entertainment; thought-provoking it isn't. But subtle and enjoyable it is. | 1 |
train_18617 | I can't say this is the worst movie ever made, but personally I think of it that way because when it was originally released in theaters, (1) the initial buzz was positive enough that my girlfriend insisted we go see it, and we actually STOOD IN LINE to get tickets, and (2) it's still the only "serious" film I recall where the audience started snickering at a certain point and basically laughed at the movie the rest of the way through. Once we reached the infamous (and interminable) snake fight scene, I think everyone gave up.The only positive I can concede is the lush location shooting. Oh, and there's also Bo's breasts, although her acting is so wooden that the nudity is unerotic and doesn't rate much more than a Playboy pictorial.The "dramatic tension" in this film is between Bo's terrible acting and her husband's horrible direction. The snake fight has to be one of the most incompetent "action" sequences ever filmed. However, this is one of those films that's bad enough, it may be worth watching on the level of unintentional humor. Definitely the worst film I ever paid to see. | 0 |
train_1389 | The Williams family live on a ranch located in the middle of the remote desert. They find themselves in considerable peril when the place is suddenly thrust into a time vortex where the past, present and future collide in a wildly chaotic and unpredictable manner. Director John "Bud" Cardos begins the film on a compellingly mysterious note and gradually allows things to get stranger, crazier and more exciting as the loopy story unfolds. Moreover, Cardos fills the screen with plenty of dazzling visuals and does a nice job of creating a genuine sense of awe and wonder. The admirably sincere acting from a game cast qualifies as another major plus: Jim Davis as hearty patriarch Grant Williams, Dorothy Malone as his cheery wife Ana, Christopher Mitchum as the concerned Richard, Marcy Lafferty as his lovely wife Beth, Natasha Ryan as sweet little girl Jenny, and Scott C. Kolden as the gutsy Steve. The funky special effects offer an inspired combo of gnarly miniatures, neat stop-motion animation monsters (said creatures include a tiny spindly hairless guy, a big, lumpy, fanged beast, and a scrawny lizard dude), and nifty matte paintings. Richard Band's rousing full-bore orchestral score really hits the stirring spot. John Arthur Morrill's crisp, sunny cinematography likewise does the trick. A fun flick. | 1 |
train_8151 | I saw it in a posh movie theater where the audience is usually white, educated, and urban. The showing I attended had a sprinkling of African-Americans, and it made the difference in audience-reaction between the two groups a wonderful social commentary on the state of race relations in this country. Basically, the white folks were AFRAID to laugh or laughed nervously at the funny bits --and there are many! -- because they'd be "laughting at Blacks", while the Blacks also stayed pretty silent because many couldn't laugh at themselves in front of the whites. I, on the other hand, being Asian (and thus belonging to neither group), had a great time viewing this satire of rap culture and its egos/trappings/values/pseudo-philosophies. The cast is talented and does at great job becoming the characters portrayed. The songs are too funny to be believed.This film is one of the best pseudo-documentaries to come along, including "A Mighty Wind" | 1 |
train_4110 | This, and "Hidden fortress" are the Kurosawa's that are most dear to me. I don't hand out 10's like candy, but this certainly deserved it, if anything. Even though it's quite long (like all Kurosawa's pretty much are) it concurred the problem which bugs me with most of his films; the storyline is often too loose and slowly evolving, containing scenes that are unnecessary or just lenghtened too much without any real purpose to the storyline or the character description. Dodesukaden delivered to me the same experience that for example "Hidden fortress" did; despite its lenght, there wasn't a single minute I would cut out.This is also a very unusual Kurosawa film in a way, it has no storyline, but many little independent stories which are based more to the character description than storyline, unlike any other Kurosawa-film I have seen so far. It also leans much on the dialogue, which he uses brilliantly (especially in the story between the father and the son planning their "new house"). Still the thing that makes this one a masterpiece is how the subject being so tragic as it is, is managed to be described so humanely and sympathetically, without pointing fingers at anybody at any point. From the beginning to the end it delivers the whole emotional scale from laughter to tears in perfect balance. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.