id stringlengths 7 11 | text stringlengths 52 10.2k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|---|
train_12158 | Well, here's another terrific example of awkward 70's film-making! The rudimentary premise of "What's the matter with Helen?" is quite shocking and disturbing, but it's presented in such a stylish and sophisticated fashion! In the hands of any other movie crew, this certainly would have become a nasty and gritty exploitation tale, but with director Curtis Harrington ("Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?") and scriptwriter Henry Farrell ("Hush
Hush
Sweet Charlotte") in charge, it became a beautiful and almost enchanting mixture of themes and genres. The basic plot of the film is definitely horrific, but there's a lot more to experience, like love stories, a swinging 1930's atmosphere and a whole lot of singing and tap-dancing! The setting is unquestionably what makes this movie so unique. We're literally catapulted back to the 1930's, with a sublime depiction of that era's music, religion, theatrical business and wardrobes. Following the long and exhausting trial that sentenced their sons to life-imprisonment for murder, Adelle (Debbie Reynolds) and Helen (Shelley Winters) flee to California and attempt to start a new life running a dance school for young talented girls. Particularly Adelle adapts herself perfectly to the new environment, as she falls in love with a local millionaire, but poor old Helen continues to sink in a downwards spiral of insanity and paranoia. She only listens to the ramblings of a radio-evangelist, fears that she will be punished for the crimes her son committed and slowly develops violent tendencies. The script, although not entirely without flaws, is well written and the film is adequately paced. There's never a dull moment in "What's the matter with Helen", although the singing, tap-dancing and tango sequences are quite extended and much unrelated to the actual plot. But the atmosphere is continuously ominous and the film definitely benefices from the terrific acting performance of Shelley Winters. She's downright scary as the unpredictable and introvert lady who's about to snap any second and, especially during the last ten minutes or so, she looks more petrifying than all the Freddy Kruegers, Jason Voorhees' and Michael Myers' combined! There are several terrific supportive characters who are, sadly, a little underdeveloped and robbed from their potential, like Michéal MacLiammóir as the cocky elocution teacher, Agnes Moorehead as the creepy priestess and Timothy Carey as the obtrusive visitor to the ladies' house. There are a couple of surprisingly gruesome scenes and moments of genuine shock to enjoy for the Grand Guignol fanatics among us, but particularly the set pieces and costume designs (even nominated for an Oscar!) are breathtaking. | 1 |
train_12826 | This early Adam Sandler film could be compared to his life as a comic during the same period in 1989. His character's constant acknowledgement of his hidden comic genius and frustration regarding humorous material seems to come more from Sandler than the script. The film is nothing compared to his blockbuster feature films, such as Big Daddy or even the corny Billy Maddison. Unfortunately, Sandler had not yet found a way to express himself in a consistent, successful and funny manner when this film was made, much like his character. The majority of the film's "jokes" come from Sandler having conversations with himself, usually over his unrecognised comic talent and beating himself up because he's too ugly and can't get women. The film is hard to watch too because it doesn't treat itself like a real film. Sandler talks to the camera and the viewers throughout the film, often referring to the film's low budget or questionable content. The film is ultimately awkward and embarrassing to watch. I immediately wanted to forget I even saw this film after it was over, for fear that if more found out about it, it would ruin Sandler's career. Pass this one up at the video store, I rented it for free and it was still a waste of time. | 0 |
train_6089 | OK, I overrated it just a bit to offset at least one of those grumpy reviews. But I did enjoy it. I didn't laugh out loud, but it held my interest and pulled me along without dropping me at any point. The story built. Yeah, you knew it would have an happy ending--this genre always does. Meantime, it was quirky with sight gags you could miss, so pay attention when you watch. Stiller and Black delivered expertly yet again. Good team. They should work together more. Don't know that it will be a cult classic, but it was certainly a fun ride. Not as good as WHAT ABOUT BOB, or DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS but what is? It is still worth going out of your way a little to get and watch this movie. | 1 |
train_23911 | The story line has been rehashed a number of times; "a breath of life in the retirement home". Several plays, movies, novels, short stories, poems and news articles have beat the subject to no end, but it's still an excellent platform for character studies.If 'Gideon' was crafted more enthusiastically it could be brilliant, but the dialogue is painfully boring and the story is absolutely flooded with cliches (even the subtitle and summary of Gideon's "simple wisdom" almost made me laugh in its ineffectiveness). Mostly indifferent acting is the final straw for this weak film, but the rest of it is bland enough to make the actors' lack of focus almost irrelevant. | 0 |
train_11477 | In my honest opinion, everyone should see this movie at least once. It really put things in perspective as I watched it. Though it was fictional, this movie is about something that could happen to your children.It shows how easily two kids can hide both their hatred for their school, and their plans to murder innocent students. This film would not have worked in any other format. They pulled off the hand-held camera, perfectly.It reminds us of April 20th, 1999, when Eric Harris, and Dylan Klebold murdered 12 students and then themselves. It also reminds us of the media storm that followed after. Everyone wanted to see the Rampart video and everyone wanted to see the Basement tapes.This movie is a fictional version of our dreams coming true. We get to see the kid behind the monster.The only bad thing about this movie, is that it did not do well on the market, and few people even know it existed. If it would have had a single preview on a single blockbuster movie, everyone would have gone to see what the big deal was about, Zero Day.I believe this is the best film adaptation of a school shooting of the few that have truly attempted it. The shooting itself only takes up about ten minutes of the hour and a half long film, because It mostly focuses on Cal and Andre, and what they did up to that point.If you have not yet seen this movie, go rent it, and watch it. I guarantee that when it is finished, you will be speechless. | 1 |
train_21316 | I saw mommy...well, she wasn't exactly kissing Santa Clause; he has his hand on her thigh and wicked thoughts in mind.This was enough to emotionally scar a young boy who wanted to believe. He grew up to be a bitter man who was upset at the quality of the toys being made, and the lack of Christmas spirit.Expecting a real slasher flick, I was very disappointed that less than a handful of people dies, and there was no nudity at all. What a bummer.I wanted to like this flick, but it was just too slow and really didn't have a good script. I didn't expect great acting, but I sure wanted some action. There just wasn't any. | 0 |
train_3223 | Ok, basically this is a popcorn sci-fi movie, but from the outset its obvious that it has been directed with a great deal of intelligence. You can count about 10 clichés that the film is building up to, but it only delivers on about three of them, and a couple of them have a twist to them that lets you know once again that the director hasn't assumed that you are an idiot. Kurt Russell's acting is truely superb and brings a depth from the character that is suprising and rewarding. Recommended if you've just seen something really stupid, and want to rebuild your faith! | 1 |
train_13739 | Being a big fan of the "other" PLANET OF THE APES films, I rented this DVD despite my aversion to all things Tim Burton. Once again, he doesn't fail to disappoint with his uninspired direction. Even the ape makeup looks second rate, which is unforgivable considering the monstrous budget of this monstrosity. Mark Wahlberg proves once and for all that he is not an actor (as if BOOGIE NIGHTS wasn't proof enough). I was embarrassed for genuine talents such as Tim Roth and Helena Bonham Carter. No doubt their paychecks motivated them since it couldn't possibly have been the cliche-ridden screenplay. I rented this DVD on a special $1 night and I still feel ripped off. | 0 |
train_8926 | I don't think anyone besides Terrence Malick and maybe Tran Anh Hung makes cinema on a purer level than Claire Denis. That said, I don't love this, her newest film, quite as much as her 2001 masterpiece "Trouble Every Day" (although it comes very close), which itself is one of my absolute favorite films. It it only because the narrative here is possibly slightly too elliptical for it's own good. Don't get me wrong, the fact that this film barely has a plot at all is really one of the best things about it, but I think Denis took it about one degree farther than it needed to go and consequently the film does flirt with incomprehensibility, and a few key plot points should have been clarified somehow (like that the main character goes to South Korea to get his heart transplant, instead of just showing him there all of a sudden without any explanation of where he is or why he is there). Also some of the other characters seemed unnecessary and as if they were just excuses for Denis to use actors she likes yet again (Beatrice Dalle's character in particular is a little distracting because you keep expecting that she is going to have some significance). Still, the film is incredibly absorbing and the cinematography is beyond amazing. It is definitely very much a masterpiece in it's own way. At least as good as Denis' more highly-acclaimed "Beau travail", if not better. Claire Denis has to be my favorite French director at this point, better than Leos Carax even. Also I have to admit that the South Korean sequence really does do "Lost in Translation" better than that film itself does (and I, unlike some, am a huge fan of that film as well). | 1 |
train_15956 | Everyone in this movie tells Raffy Carruthers how talented she is, what a great director she'll one day turn out to be, etc. I think they're just being nice. Even Kimble Rendall, who directed this film, shows more talent than she does. "The next Jane Campion", they call her; and, even apart from the fact that they're both over-rated, the two have SO much in common. They both direct movies. They're both women. They're both Australian. (Well, give or take.)Yep: it's one of those films in which a character is deemed to be brilliant, and we just have to swallow hard and accept it. But I'll say this for Carruthers: she's cute. -And fascinating. No, really. Here are some thoughts on her lack of talent:(1) Part of a director's talent lies in dealing with people. Why is Carruthers so phenomenally bad at getting her crew to even take notice of her? So as to make it easier for everyone to wander off the set and get killed, I expect.(2) Why is this one of the most unconvincing depictions of a movie set I have ever seen? After all, it must have been filmed on a REAL movie set. How could they get it wrong? If Rendall's set was half as much of an under-staffed shambles it's a wonder he completed his film at all.(3) Carruthers - the fictional director - has set herself the task of creating a brand new 1980s horror flick. Fat chance. I doubt it can be done these days. I suspect that Rendall - the actual, and more talented, director - set himself the same task, realised it couldn't be done, and settled for (sigh) knowing parody instead. Of course, it's not ENOUGH of a parody to work as a parody. As soon as the cast and crew set foot in the isolated mansion the film just spends most of its time doing badly what 1980s horror films did ... well, less badly.(4) And yet, and yet ... the film opens with not a parody but an honest-to-goodness pastiche of 80s horror, starring (this is too good to be true) Molly Ringwald. This pastiche is much better than anything that follows. (It's a bad sign when you find yourself wishing you were watching the movie-within-the-movie, rather than the movie.) Yet it, too, was filmed in the late 1990s. Perhaps it IS still possible to make 1980s horror. You just have to drop the knowing parody stuff and MEAN it.(5) I'd never once wondered what 1980s teen horror would be like if all the characters had Australian accents, but now I know. And strangely, I'm glad I know. A need I never knew I had has been fulfilled. | 0 |
train_4437 | This police procedural is no worse than many others of its era and better than quite a few. Obviously it is following in the steps of "Dragnet" and "Naked City" but emerges as an enjoyable programmer. The best thing about it is the unadorned look it provides into a world now long gone...the lower class New York of the late 40's/early 50's. Here it is in all its seedy glory, from the old-school tattoo parlors to the cheap hotels to the greasy spoons. These old police films are like travelogues to a bygone era and very bittersweet to anybody who dislikes the sanitized, soulless cityscape of today.Also intriguing is the emphasis on the nuts-and-bolts scientific aspect of solving the crime...in this case, the murder of a tattooed woman found in an abandoned car. Our main heroes, Detectives Tobin and Corrigan, do the footwork, but without the tedious and painstaking efforts of the "lab boys", they'd get nowhere. Although the technology is not in the same league, the cops here use the dogged persistence of a C.S.I. investigator to track down their man.The way some reviewers have written about this movie, you think it would have been directed by Ed Wood and acted by extras from his movies. What bosh! I enjoyed John Miles as the gangly ex-Marine turned cop Tobin...he had a happy-go-lucky, easy-going approach to the role that's a welcome change from the usual stone-faced histrionics of most movie cops of the period. Patricia Barry is cute and delightful as his perky girlfriend who helps solve the crime. Walter Kinsella is stuffy and droll as the older detective Corrigan. I rather liked the chemistry of these two and it made for something a bit different than the sort of robotic "Dragnet" approach.The mystery itself is not too deep and the final chase and shoot-out certainly won't rank amongst the classics of crime cinema, but during it's brief running time, "The Tattooed Stranger" more than held my interest. | 1 |
train_3509 | I saw this film a while back and it's still at the top of my 'favorite movies' list. It is amazingly put together and what really makes the film are the detailed tid bits (such as the 'Cafe Bustelo' coffee crate being reused as a cup to wash her grandsons hair) that people aren't seeing because YOU WILL NOT UNDERSTAND THIS MOVIE UNLESS YOU ARE HISPANIC. This is just one of those films that is very culturally specific and particular. Please do not bash this film if you have no prior knowledge of what foundation it's being built upon. I completely see what the writer/director was going for, and he hit the target perfectly! This film is highly deserving of a better rating. | 1 |
train_9866 | Just saw ICE AGE, a very funny and especially nice looking film. The story is simple but effective, the characters lovable and nicely fleshed out but what really shines is the digital set design.More inspired by traditional animated movies than reality, the designs give you a really, really nice looking world in a astounding use of colour. Sometimes the touches of reality shine through (especially the water was impressive), but nonetheless, it's a fantasy-world based on reality. Including loads of vast landscapes especially helps to minimise the costs of rendering.Pixar films shine with technical brilliance, this one shines with effective uses of technical know-how.Enough technical babble, the film's entertaining, family-friendly and sometimes just hilariously funny. | 1 |
train_23868 | This film was more effective in persuading me of a Zionist conspiracy than a Muslim one. And I'm Jewish.Anbody go to journalism school? Read an editorial? Freshman year rhetoric? These alarmist assertions, presented in a palatable way, might prove persuasive. But by offering no acknowledgment of possible opposing arguments, nor viable (or any at all) solutions, few sources and each of dubious origin, makes the argument an ineffectual diatribe.And thank goodness for that -- I wouldn't want anyone to leave the theatre BELIEVING any of this racist claptrap.A good lesson for me -- and hopefully a cautionary tale for you -- to actually read about a film before seeing it. | 0 |
train_12984 | I was disgusted by this movie. No it wasn't because of the graphic sex scenes, it was because it ruined the image of Artemisia Gentileschi. This movie does not hold much truth about her and her art. It shows one piece of art work that she did (Judith Beheading Holofernese) but shows that being entered as testimony in the rape trial when she did not paint her first Judith for a year after the trial.I don't know if you understood this from the movie, probably not, Tassi was not a noble character. He RAPED Artemisia. It was not love, it was rape. He did not claim to accept false charges of rape to stop her from suffering while she was tortured. According to the rape transcripts he continued to claim that he never carnally knew Artemisia (aka had sex with) while she states over and over again "It's true".I encourage all of you people to go out and find about the real Artemisia and see what she is really about. Don't base all of your knowledge on this fictional movie. I encourage you to do some research, Artemisia really does have interesting story behind her and some amazing art work.Don't see the movie, but find out the true story of Artemisia. | 0 |
train_5294 | "Pecker" proves that Waters has no intention of changing his tacky ways in his old age. A lot of things have changed since Waters started making films in the 1960s, but 40 years later he is still doing what he wants to do. Over the years, the budget of Waters' films has increased considerably. This is one of his most recent productions, but I was amazed to see that Waters still has that "trailer-park" touch. Edward Furlong plays Pecker, a kid who is obsessed with photography. He lives a quite life in Baltimore, MD, with his friends and family. But Pecker attracts the attention of a New York art agent (the always watchable Lili Taylor), and his life changes for the worst. Once again, Waters makes fun of art, fame and heterosexuality. It is not among his best films, but there are some big belly laughs here ("Memama" has the best lines in the film!). It is consistently clever and funny, and has that very "queer" sensibility that I have come to love in Warters' movies. | 1 |
train_20663 | I agree with everything people said on this one but I must add that the soundtrack is probably the WORST one I have ever heard my entire life! There are actual vocals during times when you are supposed to be listening to the actors talk! And the vocals are like a broadway version of Danzig singing, "The darkness of the forest! Oh the darkness of the dark, dark forest!" or something else so unthreatening. The singer has a terrible vibrato and has been recorded with a treble-y microphone over some synthed-up string section and fake drum beats. It's horrible!! Yes, the male leads are awful. So are the female ones. This is one bad case of gender stereotyping - it's so bad! Everything they say revolves around being a male or a female, just playing up the stereotypes to the max. Makes me sick. Soooo boring!!! The children were so echoey in their lines, you couldn't understand them. And why do female ghost children always wear cute little bows in their hair, pretty blue dresses and long hair? And ghost boys always wear clean cut slacks with cute little shiny blond hair? Not scary - STUPID.Daddy's face was way too blemish free and clean to be that of a man living in a cave. Nice beard and bangs, pa. Did you perfectly cut those with a knife yourself or did you stroll into town and go to the salon?Stupid movie. | 0 |
train_17043 | I read the book and the book was fascinating.This movie, it's direction, the screenplay, and the acting were totally insufferable. I cringed at the lack of a screenplay that could not follow the novel, a novel that has all the action, simplicity, and courage to illustrate a temerity of a great possibly fact based story.I can see why this movie was not released to the general public in most cities. Would not ever recommend this film to anyone I know. Simply, one of he worst adaptations I have seen transformed into a plot less exploration of heaven on earth.The cinematography was indeed the only highlight. But, how could that fail when filmed in an beautiful country such as Peru. To prospective viewers, do not waste your time or energy on this flop. | 0 |
train_8788 | Well, I am delighted to hear a rumor that this may finally be issued on DVD. When that will happen, I don't know, but I will grab it when it's released.In my humble opinion, this is Errol Flynn's most entertaining film, especially when "Gentleman Jim" Corbett's ring career begins in the film. Then it goes from a good film to a great one.Few people could play arrogant men and still come off as a likable good guy as well as Flynn could and this film is a perfect example of that. Reportedly, this was Flynn's favorite role and I believe that. You can just sense how much fun he was having here. Ward Bond also looks like he was really enjoying his role playing the famous John L. Sullivan. Bond, too, was never better.There is just the right amount of action boxing scenes in here and they are pretty well done, too. Corbett's family is fun to watch, too, as they carry on in the stands during Jim's matches. Out of the arena, Corbett's family's constant arguments and yelling can get a little too loud and annoying but they set the stage for a fitting conclusion.And speaking of the conclusion, Sullivan's speech to Corbett after the big fight is very touching and the highlight of the film. Some mean-spirited critics (Variety, for example) didn't like that ending nor the fact that much of the film is fictionalized but - duh - most films are fictionalized, like it or not. And, in this case, it made for a nice story and nice ending. (In real life, Corbett was a very soft-spoken true gentleman, not anything like Flynn's portrayal, but Flynn still make him a good guy.)This is one of the more entertaining classic films I have ever watched and I eagerly wait for the DVD. | 1 |
train_5871 | I cherish each and every frame of this beautiful movie. It is about regular people, people we all know, who suffer a little in their life and have some baggage to carry around. Just like all of us. Robert DeNiro, Ed Harris and Kathy Baker breathe life into their portrayals and are all excellent, but Harris is especially heartbreaking and therefore very real. You would swear he really is a trucker who drinks so he won't have to feel anything. Baker as his put-upon sister also has some delicate moments - when DeNiro gives her flowers in one scene, it seems like she was never given flowers before and probably wasn't. Very worthwhile. | 1 |
train_1425 | Just like Al Gore shook us up with his painfully honest and cleverly presented documentary-movie "An inconvenient truth", directors Alastair Fothergill and Mark Linfield also remind us that it's about time to improve our way of life in order to save our beautiful planet. "Planet earth" is also a wake-up call that the global warming of our planet has disastrous consequences for all living creatures around the world. Al Gore showed us the bleak future of planet Earth by presenting hard facts backed up by documented examples through long yet always interesting monologues. The creators of this documentary choose a different yet equally powerful way to accomplish this. They do not present us with a future representation of what might occur to our planet if we don't radically change things around, but they rather show us the genuine beauty of planet Earth in all of its amazing glory. We see places that we knew that existed but never thought they could be so beautiful. In this movie, we see a wide array of the most extraordinary places such as forsaken deserts, giant forests full of fauna and flora and icy-landscapes as far as the eye could see. And in all of those immensely different environments, we see the most beautiful animals trying to survive.This is exactly the kind of movie that had to be made, in combination with the one from Al Gore, in order to make us realize that our planet is too precious to meddle with. The voice-over by Patrick Stewart is always relaxing and thus very well done although at first it sounded as though I was watching an X-men movie instead! The cinematography is probably the most remarkable thing of this documentary. At times: what you see is so unreal that you tend to forget that a man with a camera actually had to film all of that delightful footage.In short: This is definitely a must-see for everyone since it concerns every single person on this beautiful planet Earth! The truth is: I never thought our planet was so astonishingly beautiful! | 1 |
train_17419 | I've rarely been as annoyed by a leading performance as I was by Ali McGraw's in this movie. God is she bothersome or what?! She says everything in the same tone and is horrible, so horrible in fact that, by contrast, Ryan O'Neal is brilliant. There is not much of a story. He's rich, she's wooden, they both have to Sacrifice A Lot for Love. His father is Stonewall Jackson, hers is called by his first name, in case you didn't notice the Difference in The Two of Them that They Overcame in the Name of Love. The Oscar nominations for this movie indicate it had to have been a bad year. John Marley is fine as Wooden's father, but a Supporting Nomination? At least Ali didn't win. I still think Katharine Ross should have played Jennifer, but then again, if it were up to me, Katharine Ross would have been in a lot more movies. She's certainly a better actress than McGraw. I didn't even cry when she got sick, never occured to me to even feel sad. It was nice to see Tommy Lee Jones looking like he was about 15, and the score is good. But this one is so old by now it has a beard a mile long, and the sin of that is its not that old, but it feels it. | 0 |
train_19640 | You already know how painful to watch this movie is. But I wonder why one of the worst movies ever should include one the most beautiful cars. Why the cars should be not only the victim of violation, but also the only true actors and performers in it. So how on Earth you Porsche, Lamborghini or whatever could allow those people to get in touch with your cars and ruin you reputation for which you give millions.Stop the getting an advantage of the cars and earn money on their chests. It is painful for those who love cars. It is painful for those who love movies.I want my money back !!! | 0 |
train_15446 | I must say that during my childhood I'm quite proud of a lot of the movies I've rented. The exception being Theodore Rex. Talk about the all time swindler movie in any actor's resume. Could you just imagine what Whoopie's fired agent must have told her to sign on to this piece of crap "Hey Whoop, you ever seen that show Dinosaurs, yeah well they're making a movie out of it, and you get to see Germany!" After that that agent must have referenced Star Wars a lot.This movie was so bad I figured Whoopie must have bought out every copy of this film and had it destroyed. I just wish she could have done the same thing to my memory, because my sister still gives me crap for watching that movie. I mean c'mon, I'll even admit I watched Mr. Nanny and Kazzam in theaters (good reasons why I gave up on both Hulk Hogan and Shaq for awhile), yet this one sticks out in my mind as the worst of my childhood, and the biggest rental regret of my life, and that was 16 years ago. I'm 24 now if you want to do the math.Whenever I think of my all-time list of worst movies I don't even mention this one, because like a raped step-child, I try hard to repress that it ever happened. Screw you Whoopie, just be glad people only acknowledge Eddie and Sister Act 2 as your worst you lucky stiff. | 0 |
train_13832 | The novelty of hearing clean-cut Jay Leno spout four-letter words is the only memorable aspect of this formulaic mismatched-police-partners caper. In COLLISION COURSE, the pelican-faced comedian teams up with the late Pat Morita to track down a stolen prototype turbocharger (think car lover Leno played a hand in the plot?). The two leads try hard, they really do, but Leno is no actor and Morita's fish-out-of-water routine gets old in a hurry. The film carries a bit of cheesy '80s appeal, but its worthy moments become increasingly scarce as it fills out its overlong 100-minute running time. Fans of Leno's considerable comedic talents will feel let down; everyone else will just be bored. | 0 |
train_12966 | How could I best express my feelings about this movie: hideous? a headache? lack of coherent writing? plain stupidity? Try all of the above for this travesty. And that just for the direction.Story? Well I guess there is a story. Two dumb blondes look for a job after they crash a plane into a golf course. They are mistaken for a 'world renounced assassin' (sarcasm) and are 'hired' by two 'mobsters'. One thinks "taking him out" means a date, and the other gets the minor actor she dreams of. And of course, the turtle reserve for the farting turtle, that they build with the casino winnings.Sounds likes all this could be funny? Guess again. They try to make it funny, but its not. Filming sequences aren't well done. I've seen better filming in Hong Kong movies. Visuals are average for a late 80s film. But the problem is that its a 2007 movie.Not worth my time to ever watch this again. It still doesn't beat Danny Glover's "Out" movie from the early 80s as the worst movie of all time, but then again that film is in a class of its own. "F" | 0 |
train_17158 | BRIEF ENCOUNTER is a ghastly and pointless remake of the 1945 David Lean classic, which was based on Noel Coward's play "Still Life". A doctor removes a particle of grit from a woman's eye at a railway station, he is in a miserable relationship, she is happily married social worker of Italian ancestry. They meet by accident on another occasion, form an instant attraction and arrange to meet each other every Wednesday. The pair fall in love, but after spending a few afternoons together they realise that they have no realistic chance of happiness and agree to part. Coward's original one-act play concerned two ordinary people who fall in love. Sophia Loren and Richard Burton, two Super Stars and veterans of Hollywood Epics, are nobody's idea of 'ordinary people'. Loren in particular is miscast - Sophia Loren in full make-up, looking like a million dollars, working as a part-time voluntary social worker at a Citizen Advice Bureau just doesn't ring true. Burton, looking haggard, with dyed hair, too much make-up and wearing platform shoes, doesn't come across as your average General Practitioner. That said, you can't really blame them for having an affair after seeing their spouses. Burton is married to a literary critic who spends her evenings penning poisonous reviews and who treats her husband with total contempt. Loren's husband, Jack Hedley, potters around the house all day and is terminally boring: the most exciting thing he has ever done is nearly have an affair six years previous. Their final scene together will induce nausea, ("You've been a long, long way away", etc.). That great British jobbing actor, John LeMesurier, has a three minute cameo as Burton's friend, and appears to be slightly inebriated, speaking his lines in a barely audible voice. It's a sad and forgettable performance in a dismal, awful rehash of a cinema classic. Avoid at all costs. | 0 |
train_3988 | This is a really interesting film. It's the first time I have seen the relationship between an older woman and a younger guy on screen without it being sensationalist. For the director of Notting Hill this is a bold move to something serious | 1 |
train_8120 | Things to Come is an early Sci-Fi film that shows an imagined world, or "Everytown" through 100 years. You can break it up into about 4 different scenes or parts. The film spans from 1940 to 2036 and is mainly about how this ruler or the "Boss" wanted to get the capability to fly in airplanes again, after Everytown was bombed and war broke out.This film only has about 3 faults: it's audio is muddy and video had some quirks, the characters aren't deep at all, and the overall plot isn't altogether solid. The plot is lacking something that I can't put my finger on... it just seems a little "fluffy." But if you love sci-fi and are interested in what H.G. Wells though might happened in the next hundred years, this is a must see. It's worth seeing just to learn of what everyone was fearing: a long, drawn-out war, because they were just about to go to war with Germany, and there was a threat of biological weapons and everything.Things to Come is a pretty good movie that most people need to see once. | 1 |
train_12561 | There's not a drop of sunshine in "The Sunshine Boys", which makes the title of this alleged comedy Neil Simon's sole ironic moment. Simon, who adapted the script from his play (which goes uncredited), equates old age with irrational behavior--and, worse, clumsy, galumphing, mean-spirited irrational behavior. Walter Matthau is merciless on us playing an aged vaudeville performer talked into reuniting with former comedy partner George Burns for a television special (it's said they were a team for 43 years, which begs the question "how long did vaudeville last, anyway?"). Burns, who won a Supporting Oscar, has the misfortune of coming to the film some thirty minutes in, after which time Matthau has already blasted the material to hell and back. The noisier the movie gets, the less tolerable and watchable it is. Director Herbert Ross only did solid work when he wasn't coupled with one of Neil Simon's screenplays; here, Ross sets up gags like a thudding amateur, hammering away at belligerent routines which fail to pay off (such as semi-incoherent Matthau showing up at a mechanic's garage to audition for a TV commercial). At this point, Matthau was still too young for this role, and he over-compensates by slouching and hollering. It was up to Ross and Simon to tone down the character, to nuance his temperament to give "The Sunshine Boys" some sunniness, yet Walter continues to project as if we'd all gone deaf. The picture looks terribly drab and crawls along at a spiritless pace; one loses hope for it early on. *1/2 from **** | 0 |
train_16141 | Recap: According to legend, the Valkyrie Brunhilda defied Odin and was chained to a rock surrounded by an eternal fire. Only a warrior pure in heart can pass through the flames, free Brunhilda and release her from Odin's claim, and have her for himself. Now, war is brewing in the Norse lands, and the King needs an alliance with the Berserkers. The Berserkers are warriors claimed by Odin's valkyries, lusting for war, blood and flesh, and therefore outcasts, but superior in battle. The leader of the Berserkers is a scorned son of the King, Boar, and his price for the alliance is his brother, the future king, Barek. But after the King is victorious in battle, he refuses to give up his only remaining son, breaking his oath to Boar and betray him and kill him. Boar is saved only by Barek's call upon Odin. But this is only the start of the battle between the brothers, and their final battle is about to start now, a millennia later...Comments: I had hopes that this would be a movie based upon some Viking ground, far too little quality movie about Viking has been done. It started out very good too, with detailed longships and armors, nice and fitting sceneries and an OK battle.The foundation in the Aesir myths is thin and seems very corrupted to me. Odin is much more vengeful, spiteful and absent than I remind him from school, and the valkyries has been turned into some vampire-demons. I'm no expert, but that seems outright wrong.But the fatal mistake made by this movie is to move the time-setting from the original time-period to today. If the two brothers had fought it out in the correct time, with some decent battles, this movie would have been much better. Now the setting, suddenly is changed to present day Stockholm. Still, Odin is present and is sending Boar and his berserkers for Brunhilda and Barek which gives silly scenes when armor-clad and painted berserkers swordfights with Barek among the industries. Beautiful mountains and woods have been exchanged for cement. And when allowed to focus upon single fights, instead of massive battles as in the beginning, I quickly saw that the fights and skills of the actors are slow and clumsy.The end result is thin story, sometimes hard to follow and other times just silly, and the only that could save it, the action, is drawn from slow, dull and clumsy swordfights. It draws very little from Aesir myth or Viking tradition. Thus both story and action fails, and the movie is just plain bad.Finally, as a Swede, this movie is a little confusing. Supposedly filmed entirely in South Africa, it still contains some familiar Swedish signs, plates and what seems to be an authentic police car. However, the effort is poor and only goes so far, as to really set it in Sweden. No names are Swedish (perhaps with Anya as the exception), no familiar sceneries are Swedish, they (supposedly) speak a little (ancient?) Norwegian, not Swedish. And uniforms, both police and medical, are clearly not Swedish. If they were not going to even try to do it correctly - and really give the illusion that it is set in Sweden, why bother at all? 4/10 | 0 |
train_8859 | The full title of this film is 'May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows you're dead', a rewording of the old Irish toast 'May you have food and raiment, a soft pillow for your head; may you be 40 years in heaven, before the devil knows you're dead.' First time screenwriter Kelly Masterson (with some modifications by director Sidney Lumet) has concocted a melodrama that explores just how fragmented a family can become when external forces drive the members to unthinkable extremes. In this film the viewer is allowed to witness the gradual but nearly complete implosion of a family by a much used but, here, very sensible manipulation of the flashback/flash forward technique of storytelling. By repeatedly offering the differing vantages of each of the characters about the central incidents that drive this rather harrowing tale, we see all the motivations of the players in this case of a robbery gone very wrong. Andy Hanson (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is a wealthy executive, married to an emotionally needy Gina (Marisa Tomei), and addicted to an expensive drug habit. His life is beginning to crumble and he needs money. Andy's ne're-do well younger brother Hank (Ethan Hawke) is a life in ruins - he is divorced from his shrewish wife Martha (Amy Ryan), is behind in alimony and child support, and has borrowed all he can from his friends, and he needs money. Andy proposes a low-key robbery of a small Mall mom-and-pop jewelry store that promises safe, quick cash for both. The glitch is that the jewelry story belongs to the men's parents - Charles (Albert Finney) and Nanette (Rosemary Harris). Andy advances Hank some cash and wrangles an agreement that Hank will do the actual robbery, but though Hank agrees to the 'fail-safe' plan, he hires a friend to take on the actual job while Hank plans to be the driver of the getaway car. The robbery is horribly botched when Nanette, filing in for the regular clerk, shoots the robber and is herself shot in the mess. The disaster unveils many secrets about the fragile relationships of the family and when Nanette dies, Charles and Andy and Hank (and their respective partners) are driven to disastrous ends with surprises at every turn. Each of the actors in this strong but emotionally acrid film gives superb performances, and while we have come to expect that from Hoffman, Hawke, Tomei, Finney, Ryan, and Harris, it is the wise hand of direction from Sidney Lumet that make this film so unforgettably powerful. It is not an easy film to watch, but it is a film that allows some bravura performances that demand our respect, a film that reminds us how fragile many families can be. Grady Harp | 1 |
train_21221 | I'm sorry but this is just plain pathetic. The little girl was a brat, their were no enjoyable characters and the plot sucked. Besides it wasn't even a gator as the film would like us to believe. If you check out any complete guide to reptiles you will find that it really is a Crocodile, not a gator. Obviously they didn't hire a real animal expert or they would know that the creature is a croc. It is a sad excuse for a movie. Especially the ending. I nearly fell asleep with this one. | 0 |
train_4023 | This is a extremely well-made film. The acting, script and camera-work are all first-rate. The music is good, too, though it is mostly early in the film, when things are still relatively cheery. There are no really superstars in the cast, though several faces will be familiar. The entire cast does an excellent job with the script.But it is hard to watch, because there is no good end to a situation like the one presented. It is now fashionable to blame the British for setting Hindus and Muslims against each other, and then cruelly separating them into two countries. There is some merit in this view, but it's also true that no one forced Hindus and Muslims in the region to mistreat each other as they did around the time of partition. It seems more likely that the British simply saw the tensions between the religions and were clever enough to exploit them to their own ends.The result is that there is much cruelty and inhumanity in the situation and this is very unpleasant to remember and to see on the screen. But it is never painted as a black-and-white case. There is baseness and nobility on both sides, and also the hope for change in the younger generation.There is redemption of a sort, in the end, when Puro has to make a hard choice between a man who has ruined her life, but also truly loved her, and her family which has disowned her, then later come looking for her. But by that point, she has no option that is without great pain for her.This film carries the message that both Muslims and Hindus have their grave faults, and also that both can be dignified and caring people. The reality of partition makes that realisation all the more wrenching, since there can never be real reconciliation across the India/Pakistan border. In that sense, it is similar to "Mr & Mrs Iyer".In the end, we were glad to have seen the film, even though the resolution was heartbreaking. If the UK and US could deal with their own histories of racism with this kind of frankness, they would certainly be better off. | 1 |
train_7782 | the photography was beautiful but i had difficulty understanding what was happening... was there a lot of symbolism?... the 2 goldfishes - do they mean something in Thai culture? there's not much plot, not much happens and it just meanders along. no real start, no real middle and no real end. rather unsatisfying really.It was difficult to get into the characters as you never felt you got to know them...it was difficult to know which scenes were imaginary and which were real. The move felt chaotic and disjointed. I don't know what the pang brothers were hoping to achieve. Maybe if I were Thai it would make more sense... | 1 |
train_822 | The last film in Lucas' saga is a lavish, spectacular-looking production. It is often considered the ugly duckling of the original trilogy, but I think it is a notch above episode IV (and just a notch below episodes III and V). In fact, I think it is the third best film in the 6-part saga. As far as I'm concerned, it is still a grandiosely entertaining film. It is not a movie with a beginning, climax and ending; the film's mechanism operates with only one goal in its mind: bring closure to Lucas' universe. There is an air of finality attached to the whole thing, which makes the film a little too sentimental, but emotionally rewarding. Also, it is a lot of fun. New characters are introduced and old ones face new, unexpected challenges. C3PO and R2D2 provide (as usual) great comic relief. Leia and Solo are a wonderful romantic duo, and Luke is still a great character to identify with. Again, it is Luke's (and Vader's) inner conflict what gives the saga its backbone. Lucas' aggressive imagination is still very much apparent, and the film's themes of loyalty, hope, and redemption resonate strongly. I'm glad Lucas eventually dropped the idea of making episode VII, VIII and IX, because this film is a great bookend to a long, fascinating and captivating saga. Not a perfect movie, but fun in the best matinée style. | 1 |
train_3527 | Scott Henderson (Alan Curtis) meets a mystery woman (Fay Helm) in a bar and invites her to see a show with him. She agrees on condition that they don't swap any information about each other - not even names. Sometimes these are the best kind of dates. However, when he returns to his apartment, Inspector Burgess (Thomas Gomez) and his team are waiting for him. Scott's wife has been murdered. His alibi is the mystery woman but no-one can remember seeing her and, as a result of this, Scott is sentenced to die for the murder of his wife. His secretary Kansas (Ella Raines) is not convinced of his guilt and sets out to find the woman who can save him from the death penalty.This is a good film and the viewer is 100% behind the attempts of Kansas to get to the truth. We follow her through some memorable scenes, eg, her pursuit of Mac the bartender (Andrew Tombes) at night and the claustrophobic venue where Cliff the drummer (Elisha Cook Jr) takes her to hang out, drink and dance while he jams with his friends. This is such a blatant depiction of sexual desire that it is a stand-out part of the film as everyone sweats intensely and rhythmically for the duration of the scene. Ella Raines is good in the female lead role and Thomas Gomez makes a likable policeman. Alan Curtis started well as the confused, innocent man, but once he is arrested his performance took a left turn as he became thoroughly unpleasant to Kansas for no reason. God knows why she stuck by him.The film doesn't keep you guessing as to who the murderer is as we know from about halfway through the film, but this doesn't matter. In fact, it adds to the tension and dramatic development of the story as we will Kansas to discover what is going on and then to get the hell out! It's a good film with some great scenes but although Elisha Cook Jr has a memorable role, I just never like him in anything that I see him in.... someone hand me a neck-tie..... | 1 |
train_16814 | I firmly believe that the best Oscar ceremony in recent years was in 2003 for two reasons: 1 ) Host Steve Martin was at his most wittiest: " I saw the teamsters help Michael Moore into the trunk of his limo " and " I'll better not mention the gay mafia in case I wake up with a poodle's head in my bed " 2 ) Surprise winners: No one had Adrien Brody down for best actor ( Genuine applause ) or Roman Polanski for best director ( Genuine jeers and boos ) but they won Last year's award ceremony wasn't too bad but there was little in the way of surprises and I was happy to see RETURN OF THE KING sweep the awards even if it wasn't the best in the trilogy ( FELLOWSHIP was much better )but what let the BBC coverage down was Jonathan Ross getting a few of his sycophantic mates round and pretending they were hilarious when they were anything but . So when I heard Sky were doing the coverage for British TV I was expecting Barry Norman and Mark Kermode to be doing the links , but instead we ended up with Jamie Theakston and Sharon Osbourne ! Oh gawd if British TV are desperate for film critics ( Obviously they are ) I'm sure both Bob The Moo and Theo Robertson will happily fly over to LA to give their honest opinions on the winners and losers Chris Rock wasn't too bad , but he's no Steve Martin while the location seemed to resemble a sports hall with seats put in ! Not much of a glitzy arena in my opinion . The main problem I had with the ceremony was the format with the " minor " Oscars handed out to the winners who were sitting in their seats ! There's no such thing as a " minor " Oscar and just because the award is for Best Animated Short or Best Costume Design they're as well deserved as Best Picture or Best Director . All the winners should be allowed to march up to the podium . What a bunch of arrogant snobs the Academy are becoming and I quite agree with the comments that this format is disgraceful and if it wasn't for the surprises this could possibly have been the worst ceremony in history . As for the awards themselves Best Supporting Actress - Cate Blanchett . No great surprise for a competitive category Best Supporting Actor - Morgan Freeman . No real complaints since Freeman is one of America's greatest living character actors Best Actor - Jamie Foxx . Most predictable award of the night . Yawn Best Actress - Hilary Swank . Major surprise since everyone thought Annette Benning was going to win simply down to academy politics but Swank did deserve it and gave the best speech of the night Best Director - Clint Eastwood . Major surprise since everyone thought Scorsese was going to get the award simply because he'd never won one . Actually I'm glad about this because if he didn't deserve it for TAXI DRIVER , RAGING BULL or GOODFELLAS he didn't deserve it for THE AVIATOR Best Film - MILLION DOLLAR BABY . Again another major surprise since everyone thought the academy would split the awards for best director and best picture while I thought the Hollywood friendly plot of THE AVIATOR would have made it a dead cert for Best Picture while MDB's controversial subject matter would have turned a lot of voters off What these awards perhaps illustrate is that this year the voters have decided to ignore Oscar politics and genuinely give out awards to people who deserve it something they haven't done in the past , I mean A BEAUTIFUL MIND beating THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING for gawd's sake ! And long may the academy vote with their heads instead of their hearts | 0 |
train_1097 | I stopped short of giving "Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House" 10/10 due to an aspect that makes us in the 21st century cringe a little bit: the fact that a black person is the faithful servant (somewhat reminiscent of Stepin Fetchit). But other than that, the movie's a hoot. Portraying middle class New York couple Jim (Cary Grant) and Muriel Blandings (Myrna Loy) trying to build a house in Connecticut, this flick has something for everyone.Grant is his usual flippant self, while Loy does quite well as merely a wife. But Melvyn Douglas adds some real laughs as Jim's and Muriel's lawyer Bill Cole, who seems to have more plans than he's making clear. As for the house itself...throughout most of the movie, you'll probably feel ambiguous as to whether or not you want to live there. The builders, contractors, and others also provide their fair share of laughs.All in all, a comedy classic. Also starring Louise Beavers, Reginald Denny, Sharyn Moffett, Connie Marshall and Jason Robards Sr. | 1 |
train_1788 | After seeing the trailer for Evening, you will probably first think about how great the cast is involved, (I mean they even got Rocky Horror's own Brad, Barry Bostwick, to show the world he is still acting), and the next second about how they just showed us the entire movie. While not entirely true, the film is pretty much summarized nicely in the trailer, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. This is a story about a dying woman who is remembering a time very long ago when she met the love of her lifethe one that got away. Her daughters hear her reminiscing about people they have never heard of and the story of what happened when she and Harris killed Buddy soon plays out. No matter what happens, though, the film is not about these people and what they do, good or bad. It is a vehicle to show that there are no mistakes in life. What may be regret could in fact be the one instance in your life that needed to occur in order for the good times that follow to ever happen.The story itself is nicely told and very obviously adapted from literature. Our filmmakers here decide to tell the story by intercutting between the present (Ann on her deathbed), dreamstate (Ann hallucinating by combining the present with the past in her mind), and the past (Ann meeting Harris at her best friend's wedding). There are a few times where the cuts are a tad abrupt, and the progression of the past is so good that you may find the present stuff a bit longwinded and boring, but overall it is handled better than at first thought. It's not as though Ann's life now is uninteresting, it just has less to do with the plot then it does with the morals being learned. While I grant that the parallels to the past help alleviate the problems for Ann's children currently, I was still a bit too enraptured in the wedding to care as much as I maybe should have. There are some nice moments, though, for instance, the crash that awakens Ann from slumber being mirrored later on, and the cryptic dreams which bridge both worlds together.It is the acting that makes the flashbacks so enthralling and fluid. These performances are completely riveting to the point where you get a bit angry when our time period has changed and we must wait to find out what happens next. No matter how annoying I find Claire Danes' angry/sad/crying face that exists in every role she plays, the girl is good at what she does. I find myself warming to her talents more and more lately and this one just furthers that thawing. Patrick Wilson is always great in whatever I've seen him in. You must give him credit for picking some really fantastic roles and never doing much more than one film a year. From Angels in America to last year's Little Children, the guy will soon blow up, but hopefully he will stay true to the craft and not cash-in. Heck even Mamie Gummer is good as the younger version of her real life mother Meryl Streep, (who surprisingly is in the film very little). She is still rough around the edges, but she was wonderful at expressing the emotional turmoil her character goes through on her wedding day. The real revelation, though, is Hugh Dancy. I feel I've seen him in many things, but in fact it seems only in King Arthur. Dancy literally steals every scene he is in and the way in which his role of Buddy is devastated by love/alcohol/life is etched in his facial expressions throughout. Without his performance, the flashback sequences could have fallen into the somewhat forgettable category as the rest of the film and made the experience as a whole much worse.While not wholly original in the ways of what the writers are after, Evening does bring intelligence and craft to the table. You may be able to fault the length and amount of cut scenes to tie everything together, but you can't argue that the acting isn't worth sticking around for. Maybe a film version of the wedding alone could have been something to see, however, when it is all put together, there may also be something coming out of it that couldn't have been achieved without all the other story threads. Either way, the payoff is worth the ride for the most part and each plane of reality finishes with its own subtle beauty and lives up to what had come before it. | 1 |
train_24590 | Although I can see the potentially redeeming qualities in this film by way of it's intrigue, I most certainly thought that the painfully long nature in the way the scene structure played out was too much to ask of most viewers. Enormous holes in the screenplay such as the never explained "your father died today" comment by the mother made it even harder to try to make sense of these characters.This won first place at Cannes in 2001 which is a shock considering. Perhaps the French had been starved for film noir that year and were desperate for something as sadistic as this film. I understood the long scenes as a device to keep the viewer as uncomfortable as possible but when matched with the inability to relate to the main character it went too far for me and kept me at arms distance from the story altogether.This is a film for only the most dedicated fan of film noir and one who expects no gratification from having watched a film once it's over. I LOVED movies such as "Trainspotting" or "Requiem for a Dream" - which were far more disturbing but at least gave the viewer something in the way of editing and pacing. To watch this teachers slow and painful silence scene after scene just became so redundant that I found it tedious - and I really wanted to like this film at every turn. | 0 |
train_14950 | I watched Peter Jackson version of Lord of the Rings when I was half way through reading the Two Towers and I thought it was absolutely brilliant.At this time the animated version of the Lord of the Rings was released on DvD but I told myself that I will finish reading the Two Towers and Return of Kings before watching it (as I thought it showed the whole of the trilogy).So when I did finish the trilogy I went and brought the DvD, which was a stupid idea because it was absolutely rubbish.I was acturly bored 20 minutes in to it which was really strange because I love the book and I am shooked that the maker of this film could of even thought of fitting at least 1 and a half of the books in to a 2 hour 8 minute film.None of the characters had any emotions when they were talking and they seemed to be reading it of a page, even my favourite character who is Gandalf did not seem interesting at all. The animation was the only okay in parts of the film except for the orks (they looked awful) and Aragorn and Sam face.I don't know way this film was released because there was not even a proper ending, but maybe it was good that the maker ran out of money because the film couldn't of got any better. I just hope that nobody judges the books by this film.3/10 | 0 |
train_10349 | This is one of those movies that made me feel strongly for the need of making movies at all. Generally speaking, I am a fan of movies based on worthy true stories. And this one is GREAT! Besides Meryl's performance which has gained a lot of recognition and praise, the movie's greatest asset is the story it is based on. The riveting tale of a couple who suffer social and legal torture, after having undergone enormous emotional pain at the unexpected and brutal death of their infant child is really an eye-opening fable that exposes the inhumane side of fellow humans, and uncovers the barbarism of a very refined and lawful society. It is interesting to see how people who consider themselves as kind and intelligent people (the emotional jury ladies in the movie for example) are in reality nothing more than selfish dupes who would, for their dogmatic beliefs and prejudices, shut their brains to any deliberation and contemplation even in the light of all facts pointing very clearly against their opinions. The other face of the so-called "civilized" society that the movie exposes is the apathy to the pain of fellow human beings (needless to say, this is very general, even though this specific tale unfolds in Australia), that goes as far as becoming a true cruelty. Must see if you are willing to take something serious and perhaps thought-provoking. | 1 |
train_13748 | This film was bad because there was nothing interesting about it. It was sort of a remake but then again, not really. I was very disappointed considering the tools that Tim Burton has at his disposal. He had great make up and CGI available and lots of money ($100 million) but can you honestly say that what we got was as good as the original film that was made for less than $6 million? Heck no. So in that regard, the film fails.At least in the original film, the statue of liberty scene was shocking but there was nothing shocking in this film even the end scene because you could kind of see it coming. And, by the way, if you give it some thought, and I did, you can figure out how the ending could come about. I just wish I had back the time that I wasted thinking about it.This film would have been brilliant and fun if it stayed along the lines of the first film and adopted part of "Beneath the Planet of the Apes". Here's how I would have written it:An astronaut (it really should have been more than Marky Mark because he's not good enough to care a film all by himself so I would have put in three guys) that would land on what they would think would be another planet, encounter humans (not mutes), a city ruled by apes, were hunted, made friends with some good apes, discover that they're on earth via finding some destroyed ruins, end up running into crazy mutant humans living beneath the earth, a war breaks out between the mutant humans and the apes, and then....well, let your imagination run wild on how you want to end it.But my point is that there could have been so much more to this film. Sadly, Tim Burton really knows how to wreck a good thing. Consider what he did with the Batman series. He's a rotten director inspite what of people think. He's trendy so he must be good goes the thinking. Sorry, but no. If anyone else had done this film, it would have turned out far better and would have been far more satisfying. | 0 |
train_18525 | Left Behind is the kind of "we know what we know cause we know it" movie that Christians (and most any other naive person) needs to help them feel like what they "THINK" and "BELIEVE" (not "KNOW") is right. But, at the same time I feel bad for the little guys, because this is not a well made film. It does not help ANY message. I work at a video store, and I KNOW the ONLY reason people went to see this movie was because they were religious and they thought it was. ANYBODY on this earth who THINKS they know what will happen in the future is wrong, unless they think they know that they don't know. I've had about enough (but only after I've had too much) of these people walking around with their noses in the air thinking that a movies starring a semi-talented TV actor means something above me.Please, if you love yourself you'll stay away. I refuse to go into any detail about this movie (not because A-I didn't see it (because I did), B-it was too shocking for my atheist-self to handle (because it wasn't), or C-I really don't have anything to say bad about it (because I do). The Reason, (which is a word nobody who helped make this movie understands) is that I want this movie out of my head, I want that it was made out of my head, I want that I watched ALL OF IT WITH AN OPEN MIND out of my head, I want the message that Kirk so proudly and coachly gives at the end of the movie out of my head. I only want all the things that were in my head BEFORE viewing this movies there, anything directly connected with this movie that's floating in my head GET OUT! My peaceful rage is ending. I'm sorry that somebody in this world went to the theater to see this movie about what could happen in the future (but won't) when they could have given that Seven Dollars Plus to any number of Human, Animal, or Rain Forest charity. But if they did that then they wouldn't be able to "BELIEVE" in the fact that it's real, they might have to fact what is. LEFT BEHIND ZERO (out of ****) | 0 |
train_4632 | Directed and co-written by Eytan Fox the writer/director of the highly acclaimed 2002 mini feature "Yossi & Jagger" (2002). This comparative epic, at 1hr 53 minutes, is another fine romantic drama in which we must deal with tragedy as well as celebrate the beauty and joy in life. Westerners, especially urban gay men like myself, need to be moved outside our safety zone and be informed of the real life and death struggle elsewhere to be able to love with equity.While "Yossi & Jagger" focused on a pair of gay lovers in the closeted confines of Israeli military service, "Ha Buah" is centred on a group of civilian friends, both straight and gay, who share a unit in the heart of Israel's generally gay-tolerant, but not always gay-friendly, capital Tel Aviv."Ha Buah" opens with a dramatic border check point scene in which Noam (Ohad Knoller Yossi from "Yossi & Jagger") first meets handsome young Arab Ashraf (Yousef Sweid). Romance soon blooms but in that political climate opportunities would have to be seized quickly or lost altogether.From there we follow an intricate interplay among the members and lovers of the housemates and the unavoidable effect of Ashraf's very conservative family. If you follow this film's dialogue attentively enough then you will have no reason to be disappointed with the ending.The soundtrack for "Ha Buah" is vibrant and the visuals are both beautiful and stark i.e. real life in the Middle East.The English subtitles are very easy to follow and you quickly relax and appreciate world cinema at its best. | 1 |
train_7726 | I am always so frustrated that the majority of science fiction movies are really intergalactic westerns or war dramas. Even Star Wars which is visually brilliant, has one of its central images, a futuristic "gang that couldn't shoot straight." Imagine your coming upon about 600 people with conventional weapons, most of them having an open shot, and they miss.I have read much science fiction, and wish there were more movies for the thinking person. Forbidden Planet, one of the earliest of the genre, is still one of the very best. The story is based on a long extinct civilization, the Krell, who created machines which could boost the intelligence of any being by quantum leaps. Unfortunately, what they hadn't bargained for, is that the brain is a center for other thoughts than intellectual. The primitive aspect of the brain, the Id, as Freud called it, is allowed to go unchecked. It is released in sleep, a bad dream come to corporeal existence. Walter Pigeon, Dr. Morbius, is the one who has jacked his brain to this level, and with it has built machines and defenses that keep him barely one step ahead of the horrors of the recesses of his own mind. His thoughts are creating horrors that he soon will not be able to defend. The Krell, a much superior species, could not stop it; it destroyed them. The landing party has never been of great interest to me. The rest of the actors are pretty interchangeable. Ann Francis is beautiful and naive, and certainly would have produced quite a reaction in the fifties adolescent male. Her father's ire is exacerbated by her innocence and the wolfy fifties' astronauts (for they are more like construction workers on the make than real astronauts). They are always trying to figure out "dames." The cook is a great character, with his obsession for hooch. Robbie the Robot has much more personality than most of the crew, and one wonders if Mr. Spock may not be a soulmate to the literal thinking of this artificial creature. The whole movie is very satisfying because the situation is the star. Morbius can't turn back and so he is destined to destroy himself and everything with him. There are few science fiction films that are worth seeing more than once; this is one that can coast right into the 21st century. | 1 |
train_9615 | This is a great movie! Most of us have seen Jurassic Park, where the Chaos Theory is summarized by telling about a butterfly's wings, causing a tornado on the other side of the planet. Well, Bug is all about that (or at least something, don't worry this is no spoiler) I'm definitely not a religious type and don't believe in pre-destined stuff, fate, etc, but this movie surely makes you wonder if coincidence really exists...further more, the acting and camera are excellent too, another prove that it's still possible to make a good movie without a zillion bucks | 1 |
train_20851 | Quite average even by Monogram standards, this mystery (a remake of The Sphinx) has an oddball plot which is not unraveled to much effect -- you'll see through it after about ten minutes. The two leads have some nice breezy dialog at the outset, but John Hamilton is hopelessly dull as the villain (perfectly cast Lionel Atwill originated the role) and Warren Hymer's nitwit shtick is pretty annoying. However, it's worth sitting through for a five-minute appearance by the incomparable Mantan Moreland as Nicodemus the janitor, who gets the better of the defense attorney during a hilarious courtroom appearance. You've got to hand it to Bill "One-Take" Beaudine; he wasn't much of a director, but he would always punch up a routine programmer with some goofy vaudeville. | 0 |
train_9604 | "Darius Goes West" is the touching story of a brave teen coping with Duchenne's Muscular Dystrophy and his personal quest to see the Pacific Ocean. He receives help and encouragement from a group of young men who love and care for him while going on this quest.The story has a natural drama and honest portrayal of the commitment of young people to help one of their own stricken with this incurable disease.Anyone who thinks young people are self-centered and narcissistic will find this movie to turn that stereotype on its head. It is the power of the young people and their engagement with Darius' plight that is very compelling in this documentary. | 1 |
train_17532 | This movie was in a sci-fi 50-pack a friend of mine got me for Christmas. It is very similar to the first Gozilla movie, and like that movie, has scenes with American actors inserted for no real reason. One interesting thing about the inserted scenes is that there's a Cold War tension portrayed between America and Russia. Like in Godzilla, Gamera is awakened by an atomic explosion and rampages across the world, paying close attention to Tokyo because no big monster movie is complete unless Tokyo bites it. All in all, this is an okay movie. Some of the scenes involving Gamera, particularly the scenes in Toly, are quite spectacular and have special effects that were pretty decent at the time. If you like Japanese giant monster movies, you'll really get a kick out of this one. I give it a 4 out of 10. Had this been the unedited Japanese version that I watched, it probably would've gotten a 5. | 0 |
train_14203 | A Vietnam vet decides to take over a backwater town run amok, and anyone who steps in his path is eliminated (including women). Released to theaters just prior to "A Star Is Born", which turned his career around, this action-drama mishmash starring Kris Kristofferson is wildly off-kilter, thoughtless and mean-spirited. Filmed in Simi Valley, CA, the results are truly unseemly, with redneck clichés and mindless violence making up most of director George Armitage's script. Armitage has gathered a most curious '70s cast for his film, including Jan-Michael Vincent, Victoria Principal, Bernadette Peters, and, in a bit, Loni Anderson; however, the center of the whole thing is Kristofferson, who is gruff and rude throughout. It deserves points I suppose for being a completely unsympathetic drive-in thriller, but the bad vibes (and the ridiculous climax) coat the whole project like an ugly stain. *1/2 from **** | 0 |
train_9786 | I really enjoyed the performances of the main cast. Emma Lung is courageous and interesting. The director has developed performances where the characters are not one dimensional. A complex story with the changing between eras. Also appreciated the underlying story of the unions losing power and the effect of a large employer closing on a small town. I do not agree with the comment that the older man has to be attractive. There have be many relationships with older men and younger women - without the male being good looking. Depth of character can be appealing to the not so shallow. The film has a good look and the cinematography is also good. | 1 |
train_23792 | Cornel Wilde and three dumbbells search for sunken treasure in the south Atlantic.The treasure-hunters led by Wilde fight a group of territorial sharks with cute little sneers on their hungry faces. Wilde and his merry men must find a way to take themselves off the menu so they can begin excavating an old Spanish galleon filled with gold bullion.After the crew engages in a small eternity of pushing, shoving, arguing, and listening to Wilde's annoying health tips, 5 crazy convicts board the boat and complicate things. Now it is a battle of wits as to who gets the treasure and who gets to see what the inside of a shark's stomach looks like.At least Wilde is in shape wearing exactly the same thing he wore in 'The Naked Prey' 10 years earlier and he has remained in excellent condition.Made on a budget of 75 cents. | 0 |
train_22147 | London Dreams, directed by Vipul Shah, is a frustratingly foolish film about foolish people. It's the kind of film whose central conflict could be instantly resolved if the characters concerned simply sat down and had a chat. Ajay Devgan plays Arjun, an aspiring pop-artiste obsessed with performing before a cheering crowd at London's Wembley Stadium. He becomes jealous of his devoted best friend and band-mate Manu, played by Salman Khan, who is evidently more talented than him, but nowhere near as focused or ambitious. Arjun decides to sabotage Manu when the latter's popularity threatens to outshine his own. Now here's where a heart-to-heart might have helped. Had Arjun explained what this Wembley fixation meant to him, Manu would have graciously backed off and let Arjun fulfill his childhood dream, and we'd have been spared the agony of watching the rest of this uninspiring drivel. But director Vipul Shah and his writers are in no mood to do us any favours. London Dreams is packed with unintentionally hilarious gems like that back-story involving Arjun's grandpa who committed suicide out of shame for getting stage-fright at a packed Wembley concert. Or the ridiculous incident at a show where Manu must take over vocal responsibilities after a blast of confetti practically chokes Arjun into silence. The idiocy, however, doesn't end there. In his attempts to shame Manu publicly, Arjun uses his connections to get Manu hooked onto drugs. A buxom groupie urges Manu to down a couple of tequila shots with her but replaces his salt with cocaine. Before you know it, Manu has acquired quite the appetite for the addictive white powder, practically chomping it down like dinner. If that isn't silly enough, there's a crude scene later in which Manu chases after the said girl to find out who she's been taking orders from. The pursuit ends in a dark London alley where the girl gets down on her knees pretending to do the unmentionable so as to mislead Manu's girlfriend who's been secretly following after them. Wait, there's more! Expect to howl hysterically when Arjun snaps off his belt and whips himself mercilessly to banish all thoughts of romance or lust towards the band's lead dancer Priya (played by Asin) because nothing and no one must distract him from his musical goals. Too generously inspired by Milos Forman's Amadeus for it to merit any comparison with last year's Rock On!, Vipul Shah's latest is a clunky melodrama that's as loosely directed as it is scripted. The film goes for broad humor, over-the-top emotions, and basically chooses loudness over subtlety. That works for Manu's character, with Salman Khan playing him all loutish and lovable, but in the case of Arjun, Ajay Devgan comes off too passive with a performance that is mostly internalised. When Arjun does reach boiling point however, it results in an awkward pre-climax scene in which he lectures a packed concert hall and is understandably pelted with plastic bottles as punishment. Of the remaining cast, there's not a kind word I can say for Asin, who practically lit up Ghajini with her ebullient charm, but disappoints here with unnecessary over-acting in a thankless role. Ranvijay Singh and Aditya Roy Kapur, reduced to mere sidekicks in the band, show up at regular intervals, usually to utter some inane dialogue like, "We'll rock it dude!" For its dim-witted writing and sloppy direction, London Dreams is ultimately a tiresome watch. If you must, watch it for Salman Khan who's turned buffoonery into a bonafide acting style. It's the only thing that'll make you smile in this sad, sad film. | 0 |
train_22511 | This film is about a male escort getting involved in a murder investigation that happened in the circle of powerful men's wives.I thought "The Walker" would be thrilling and engaging, but I was so wrong. The pacing is painfully and excruciatingly slow, that even after 40 minutes of the film nothing happens much. Seriously, the first hour could be condensed into ten minutes. That's how slow it is.The fact that it lacks any thrills or action scenes aggravates the boredom. It's almost shocking that even argument scenes are so plain and devoid of emotion. Maybe it is because of the stiff upper lip of the higher social class? It's sad that "The Walker" becomes such a boring mess, despite such a strong cast. Blame it on the poor plot and even worse pacing. | 0 |
train_12771 | I cannot believe how popular this show is. I consider myself an avid sci-fi fan. I have read countless sci-fi novels and have enjoyed many sci-fi movies and TV shows. I really wouldn't even consider this true sci-fi. Every episode I have sat through was like a lame, watered down version of a Star Trek episode, minus anything that might make it interesting or exciting.It's basically a bunch of people standing around in ARMY fatigues, talking about something boring, who occasionally go through the Stargate and end up on a planet that looks just like Earth, with people who look and sound just like Humans! It seemed extremely low budget. The characters are all forgettable one dimensional cutouts, and the many attempts at humor fall flat. It reminds me when you see a commercial with a famous athlete in it, trying to be funny, but he is not. It is just sad.The movie was terrible as well. There is so much you can do with a portal through space, yet every place the ARMY people go is BORING! This shows no imagination! I actually thought the TV series "Alien Nation" from a few years back (based on the movie Alien Nation) was much better. That show actually had good story lines and decent characters. I wasn't crazy about "Alien Nation", but compared to this overrated crap, it was great!Also, unlike the great new "Battlestar Galactica" series, "Stargate" copied the look and feel of the lame movie too closely! They should have at least updated the cheesy "toilet flushing" special effect of whenever somebody goes through the Stargate. | 0 |
train_8126 | I must admit a slight disappointment with this film; I had read a lot about how spectacular it was, yet the actual futuristic sequences, the Age of Science, take up a very small amount of the film. The sets and are excellent when we get to them, and there are some startling images, but this final sequence is lacking in too many other regards...Much the best drama of the piece is in the mid-section, and then it plays as melodrama, arising from the 'high concept' science-fiction nature of it all, and insufficiently robust dialogue. There is far more human life in this part though, with the great Ralph Richardson sailing gloriously over-the-top as the small dictator, the "Boss" of the Everytown. I loved Richardson's mannerisms and curt delivery of lines, dismissing the presence and ideas of Raymond Massey's aloof, confident visitor. This Boss is a posturing, convincingly deluded figure, unable to realise the small-fry nature of his kingdom... It's not a great role, yet Richardson makes a lot of it.Everytown itself is presumably meant to be England, or at least an English town fairly representative of England. Interesting was the complete avoidance of any religious side to things; the 'things to come' seem to revolve around a conflict between warlike barbarism and a a faith in science that seems to have little ultimate goal, but to just go on and on. There is a belated attempt to raise some arguments and tensions in the last section, concerning more personal 'life', yet one is left quite unsatisfied. The film hasn't got much interest in subtle complexities; it goes for barnstorming spectacle and unsubtle, blunt moralism, every time. And, of course, recall the hedged-bet finale: Raymond Massey waxing lyrical about how uncertain things are! Concerning the question of the film being a prediction: I must say it's not at all bad as such, considering that one obviously allows that it is impossible to gets the details of life anything like right. The grander conceptions have something to them; a war in 1940, well that was perhaps predictable... Lasting nearly 30 years, mind!? A nuclear bomb - the "super gun" or some such contraption - in 2036... A technocratic socialist "we don't believe in independent nation states"-type government, in Britain, after 1970... Hmmm, sadly nowhere near on that one, chaps! ;-) No real politics are gone into here which is a shame; all that surfaces is a very laudable anti-war sentiment. Generally, it is assumed that dictatorship - whether boneheaded-luddite-fascist, as under the Boss, or all-hands-to-the-pump scientific socialism - will *be the deal*, and these implications are not broached... While we must remember that in 1936, there was no knowledge at all of how Nazism and Communism would turn out - or even how they were turning out - the lack of consideration of this seems meek beside the scope of the filmmakers' vision on other matters.Much of the earlier stuff should - and could - have been cut in my opinion; only the briefest stuff from '1940' would have been necessary, yet this segment tends to get rather ponderous, and it is ages before we get to the Richardson-Massey parts. I would have liked to have seen more done with Margareta Scott; who is just a trifle sceptical, cutting a flashing-eyed Mediterranean figure to negligible purpose. The character is not explored, or frankly explained or exploited, except for one scene which I shall not spoil, and her relationship with the Boss isn't explored; but then this was the 1930s, and there was such a thing as widespread institutional censorship back then. Edward Chapman is mildly amusing in his two roles; more so in the first as a hapless chap, praying for war, only to be bluntly put down by another Massey character. Massey himself helps things a lot, playing his parts with a mixture of restraint and sombre gusto, contrasting well with a largely diffident cast, save for Richardson, and Scott and Chapman, slightly.I would say that "Things to Come" is undoubtedly a very extraordinary film to have been made in Britain in 1936; one of the few serious British science fiction films to date, indeed! Its set (piece) design and harnessing of resources are ravenous, marvellous. Yet, the script is ultimately over-earnest and, at times, all over the place. The direction is prone to a flatness, though it does step up a scenic gear or two upon occasion. The cinematographer and Mr Richardson really do salvage things however; respectively creating an awed sense of wonder at technology, and an engaging, jerky performance that consistently beguiles. Such a shame there is so little substance or real filmic conception to the whole thing; Powell and Pressburger would have been the perfect directors to take on such a task as this - they are without peer among British directors as daring visual storytellers, great helmsmen of characters and dealers in dialogue of the first rate."Things to Come", as it stands, is an intriguing oddity, well worth perusing, yet far short of a "Metropolis"... 'Tis much as "silly", in Wells' words, as that Lang film, yet with nothing like the astonishing force of it. | 1 |
train_10392 | This is a beautiful movie filled with adventure. The Genii in the bottle is a classic scene. Romantic in it's finish, all things turn out as they should be. I saw this first as a child and have remembered it as a fantasy I wished was true. | 1 |
train_4780 | Always fancied this film from the video cover. Eventually got round to buying it for a fiver in a sale and boy what a film. A simply stunning performance from all of the case and it's filmed so beautifully. Even at times from a distance so you can barely hear what the dialogue is, as if you really are that distance away picking up bits of the tale. It's really moving, frequently amusing and very watchable. Not much dialogue but is filmed in such a way that you feel so much throuout. A 9/10 from me. A must see. | 1 |
train_21146 | This is the worst movie I have ever seen. I was going to get up and leave at Tape 4 but I stuck it out. I now consider myself a Masochist! Afghanistan? Come on guys! Who's the idiot who forgot to hide the Sanskrit billboards? I thought the lead actor(George Calil) was particularly inept. Apart from the bad acting and over zealous camera shake, I thought using the events of 9/11 as a reason to make "Larson the Lunatic Implodes, all over a screen near you" disgraceful and irreverent to the victims of 9/11. Using a phone call from Larson's wife, Sarah, supposedly from one of the terrorist held planes on that day, was appalling. The camera shake didn't make me feel sick, that cold hearted stunt did. | 0 |
train_15404 | If, in the first 10 minutes of this film, you don't realize that the main character, who writes a life advice column, is going to have the tables-oh-so-cleverly-turned and learn some valuable life lessons himself, then there is probably something wrong with you. The set up is so predictable as to ruin the movie, even if the rest of the movie was good (which it isn't) There's almost no chemistry between the leads, and Steve Carell's stalker-ish behavior is embarrassing, not funny. It's hard to believe Binoche's character would have any interest in him. Then in the end it's all wrapped up so wonderful and everyone lives happily ever after. Isn't that great America! | 0 |
train_16622 | Motocrossed was fun, but it wasn't that great. I guess I just didn't understand a lot of the Motocross racing "lingo" (and there was A LOT of that in the film)! The plot wasn't what I expected from the Disney Channel previews, so that could account for some of my disappointment. | 0 |
train_4416 | Harvey Keital's best performance so far the new century. Very nicely photographed, a beautiful snap-shot of pre-Castro Cuba. The story revolves around the nephew of a local minor crime boss who develops a friendship with an American with Hollywood connections. It's really about the moment when a boy awakens to the fact that the small circle of people he knows actually live in a much larger, much more complex world that he doesn't yet understand.the script is strong and filled with humor, the direction is crisp. Over all, a really professional job that fits in well with the tradition of Latin American cinema. The one weakness is the decision to shoot in sync-sound English rather than Spanish - probably to improve sales in the US. Unfortunately, this just makes the film a little less convincing. But if you can see beyond this, you will find a heartfelt trip to another world. Recommended. | 1 |
train_13630 | Overlong drama that isn't capable of making any real point. So she became an actress - so what? She learned to love - big deal. There is a certain eccentricity among the characters and in the dialog and situations, but the kind which is bad for the movie, causing it to often seem absurd.Summer Phoenix, playing the lead, talks and behaves like a semi-retarded person, so there is no choice but to watch the movie as about a retarded girl that makes it in the world of theater - which was clearly not the intended point. We are told early on (in that "Barry Lyndon"-like narration) that she learned to hide her emotions, which certainly explains her autistic stone-face, but the movie suffers for it. She basically walks around like a zombie, and her success as an actress isn't quite credible given her lack of emotions. Occasionally, the movie had that dull, sleepy feel of a Dogma 95 movie. Is it one? I wouldn't be at all surprised.Summer Phoenix is sister of Joaquim Phoenix and the late River Phoenix. Nepotism rarely works.If you'd like to see my Hollywood Nepotism List, with over 350 pictures/entries, contact me by e-mail. | 0 |
train_13729 | Sorry, but aside from Kim Basinger doing a good job acting scared, this was one of the worst thrillers I've seen in awhile. Logic is thrown out as 4 young guys terrorize this woman outside a crowded mall then shoot a security guard. Yet no one seems to notice. Then, instead of screaming for help or racing back to the mall, she drives off and ends up in the middle of the woods with the guys in hot pursuit. I can't even describe how silly it is seeing this woman fleeing from 4 retarded thugs, carrying a red toolbox, screaming for God to come help her, and then having sex with one of them after brutally killing the others. Please trust me, this is bad and a bit tasteless as well. | 0 |
train_4522 | This one took me by surprise because i had often been disappointed by Adrian Pasdar in the past, but he caught the perfect balance in this performance, avoiding both farce and pathos while delivering humour and real emotions. The always-wonderful Julie Waters is terrific here, and anyone who has not yet scene her in 1983's Educating Rita should rent it immediately (marvelous film). The rest of the supporting characters are well-played as well, many marvelously eccentric without going over the top. This one is fun. | 1 |
train_24790 | I and a friend rented this movie. We both found the movie soundtrack and production techniques to be lagging. The movie's plot appeared to drag on throughout with little surprise in the ending. We both agreed that the movie could have been compressed into roughly an hour giving it more suspense and moving plot. | 0 |
train_350 | I wanted to see Valentine ever since I saw that Denise Richards and Marley Shelton were in it because they had played in some of my favorite movies ever. When I watched Valentine, I was amazed at how great the story line actually was. It kills me to see that it has a low rating because it was not horrible at all. The actors and actresses played the parts wonderfully and the way it ended was so brilliant and cunning. Some scenes were a little unbelievable and or poor, and I admit at a few minor parts it got just a small bit boring, but overall it was non-stop entertaining and suspenseful. It had a mind-twisting story line which made you guess the whole way through and it doesn't deserve all the crap it gets. I recommend this movie to watch anytime, but especially on Valentine's Day because it's sure to give you a ton of chills. Oh, and don't even pay attention to the trailer OR rating, please, DON'T... | 1 |
train_19713 | While I certainly consider The Exorcist to be a horror classic, I have to admit that I don't hold it in quite as high regard as many other horror fans do. As a consequence of that, I haven't seen many of The Exorcist rip-offs, and if Exorcismo is anything to go by, I'll have to say that's a good thing as this film is boring as hell and certainly not worth spending ninety minutes on it! In fairness to the other Exorcist rip-offs, this is often considered one of the worst, and so maybe it wasn't the best place for me to start. It's not hard to guess what the plot will be: basically it's the same as the one in The Exorcist and sees a girl get possessed by a demonic spirit (which happens to be the spirit of her dead father). The village priest is then called in to perform the exorcism. Like many Spanish horror films, this one stars Paul Naschy, who is pretty much the best thing about the film. Exorcismo was directed by Juan Bosch, who previously directed the derivative Spanish Giallo 'The Killer Wore Gloves'. I haven't seen any of his other films, but on the basis of these two: I believe that originality wasn't one of his strong points. There's not a lot of good things I can say about the film itself; it mostly just plods along and the exorcism scene isn't worth waiting for. I certainly don't recommend it! | 0 |
train_11890 | This is quite a dull movie. Well-shot with realistic performances especially a very good one from Depardieu as a cad and bad boy with realistic locations mood and art-house connotations all over, it fails because the director takes no position, stand or critical commentary on the topic he stipulates. One of France's revered and regular working partner on films with Depardieu - I believe they made 7 together - Pialat fails to engage. It seems to be a treatise on why women fall for the bad boy who will hurt when they have a ready caring boyfriend and good-hearted husband around. Isabelle Hupert who plays the philanderer with nonchalant distinction offers opprobrium answers like "I don't know"; "I like his arms"; "I like the way he makes love" to her inquiring husband who tries to kick her out of the house but palliates and reconsiders because... I assume he loves her. So he accepts and hope for what? That she will one day wake up and come to her senses. Things like this are not answered in Pialat's condescending docu-drama style with long speeches and even longer scenes that don't add up. I know the answers do not add up but please take a stand. Jules et Jim, this is not. The final shot as cold as the movie we have just watched is a heartache and headache only to the most forgiving. | 1 |
train_13878 | It's like a bad 80s TV show got loose and tried to become a soft-core porn movie. Oh my god was it bad. The plots of each character had little relevance. The plot itself wasn't anything to speak of. Something about a stalker, I guess. In the end he shoots himself? It's not really clear, but somehow there's a volleyball game involved. And the main character (Randy) sleeps around a lot. The only reason my friends rented this movie was because Casper Van Dien was in it, and they ended up wanting to fast forward to the scenes with him in it, which were barely watchable at that. Thank god I didn't spend any money on it, but I want that hour of my life back. | 0 |
train_187 | Marion Davies stars in this remarkable comedy "Show People" released by MGM in 1928. Davies plays a hick from Savannah, Georgia, who arrives in Hollywood with her father (Dell Henderson). The jalopy they arrive in is a hoot - as is Davies outrageous southern costume. Davies lands a job in slapstick comedy, not what she wants, but it brings her success. She meets fellow slapstick star William Haines, who is immediately smitten with her. Well, Davies then gets a job at a more prestigious studio ("High Art Studios") and lands a job in stuffy period pieces. A handsome but fake actor (Andre Telefair) shows her the ropes of how to be the typical pretentious Hollywood star. Davies abandons her slapstick friend and father for the good life, but of course learns that is not who she really is. Marion Davies is wonderful throughout, as she - outrageously - runs the gamut of emotions required of a "serious" actress. William Haines is his usual wonderful comedic self, and there are cameos by Charles Chaplin, John Gilbert, and other famous stars of the day, including the director of the film, King Vidor. This is a silent film with a few "sound effects" as sound pictures were just coming into their own. A treasure of a film. | 1 |
train_9388 | Much to your presumable happiness fair readers, Cage and Hopper did meet and fortunately not in a Lynch moviebecause RED ROCK WEST is way better than any Lynch movie
. Nicolas Cage is a thirdrate actor, the porcelain babe is a surrogate femme fatal, only daddy Hopper is as mean as ever
. RED ROCK WEST is, despite the trite cast, one of my favorite American thrillers; in a word, a thriller with some twists.One notices mainly the gusto, the awesome pace, the thrills, the nice suspense, Lara Flynn Boyle's cute tight small ass, Cage's enviable physical shape (though undeniably ugly, with sharp, bird features, thick eyebrows and thin, rare hair, Cage displayed a fine overall shape
), Hopper's consummate routine, some moderately but truly funny moments, Cage's play with his intended persona, Hopper's rigid, psychopathic allure, Lara's meanness, Cage seems a roamer, the archetypal gloomy roamer of the noir cinema, hungry, tough if needed, naive, dirty, tired. Lara Flynn Boyle performs as the cold mean seductress, Walsh as her heartless husband, and Hopper as the Lynchian hit-man he's already done before.Cage looks indeed rather groggy or dizzy or very confused and having a severe hangover. But this might be his regular look. | 1 |
train_24107 | I found Horrorvision almost unwatchable. While only 70 minutes in length I still found myself hitting the fast forward button again and again. The acting was of the `if I scream and say ***k a lot I'm intense' school. And the story was at best a scenario that had yet to be fleshed out.While I never go to Full Moon for great film making I have never seen them produce as bad a piece of junk as this. | 0 |
train_3067 | What a surprising treat to come across on late television. Had I only read a brief plot rundown on a television listing before seeing the movie, I would have passed. The idea of a movie about a hit-man-seeing-a shrink-wanting-to leave-the-business-and-falling-in-love....sounds trite. But the film works. From the start of the movie, it's clear the man carries a weight on his shoulders, before he even says a word. The look and feel of the film is perfect. dark, but not obnoxiously so.Aside from the hit-man family aspect which provides a touch of surrealism, Macy's character grapples with his marriage, and his father's control. Macy shows a repressed sadness, and his bedtime talks with his young son are amazing. The young boy shows acting skills well beyond his years, and the interaction between the father and son is so very natural, personal and loving.This is one of the best movies I've seen in a while, and I can't believe I came across it by accident on late night television. | 1 |
train_6239 | A movie/documentary about different people in Austria on the hottest weekend of the year. It follows what they are doing and maybe more what they are not doing. The tempo is very quiet......so you have to relax.......breathe in...breathe out before you see it......First you think....but nothing is happening and you get a little angry over that..and thats the problem, because its the mood of the film and the really nice social realistic pictures which are nice in this film...........a lot of people will say its disgusting......but its not that bad...i think its more used for the marketing....and theres some really funny moments...a 60 old woman stripping.....i guarantee its the most unsexy striptease in film history......its movie which is real..i think thats the word......right up in your face.......and that makes it a bit scary.no computer manipulation here.....its real life...and as we all know movies can win over reality when it comes to doing sick things..........so its much worse in the real world.......If you survive the movie you can start to look at your neighbors and think...maybe they are like the persons in the movie...i bet theres a lot of them out there......sick...crazy people living with a nice facade........after seing the movie i feel its more interesting to look at my neighbors........But maybe you shouldnt see this movie on your first date......... | 1 |
train_4805 | when i first heard about this movie i thought it would be like The Duchess(2008), but when i saw the first 30 minutes of The Young Victoria i knew this wouldn't just be a solid movie. Almost everything in this movie is great, the costumes are really amazing and the settings are also beautifully shot.The only thing that really let me down are the performances. Emily Blunt(The Devil Wears Prada) is the star of the film, bringing Victoria to life and with this movie she shows that she is a great actress and maybe picking a first Oscar nomination for her performance. Rupert Friend is almost bland as Prince Albert but he has great chemistry with Emily Blunt. Paul Bettany is also solid as Lord Melbourne although i expected more of him. Jim Broadbent and Miranda Richardson both have supporting roles but are forgettable.To me the film feels like unfinished. Maybe that the screenwriters changed too many things in the script, i don't know but that's how i feel about the movie.But overall it's a great movie about the early years of Victoria with a Great performance from Emily Blunt. | 1 |
train_9600 | This movie is a touching story about an adventure taken by 15-year-old Darius Weems. Darius has Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, a still un-curable disease that took the life of his brother at age nineteen and is the number one killer of babies in the United States. Him and a few close friends travel across the country to Los Angeles with the goal of getting his wheelchair customized on MTV's, Pimp My Ride, one of his favorite shows. The journey begins in Georgia, where Darius grew up and has never left. The gang head west for a trip that all its participants will never forget. Darius gets to ride in a boat for the first time, ride in a hot air balloon, swim in the ocean and visit sights he's always wanted to see like the Grand Canyon and New Orleans. The filmmakers here clearly have an emotional connection to the material. They make no money from sales of the $20 dvds. $17 goes toward researching the disease and $3 goes toward making more copies. The film has won over 25 awards at festivals and I agree with the quote given to the film by Variety, "Certain to stir hearts". | 1 |
train_19956 | This may not be the worst comedy of all time, but it's close. The producers of this movie stole an hour and a half of my life, and I want it back!Chris Kattan is funny for about 10 minutes. His high pitched voice and mad flailing start to get old, and then you realize that the rest of the movie is much worse. He falls into a long line of former SNL-ers that have attempted movies. Some have been brilliant, some have failed miserably. There's not much middle ground in this category. Although Chris Farley was brilliant, and then okay, and then not so funny, and then dead...so I suppose he hits the entire spectrum in one career.Avoid this movie like the plague.c | 0 |
train_22921 | I saw this movie as a very young girl (I'm 27 now) and it scared me witless for years. I had nightmares about every aspect of this film from the way it was drawn to the music to (obviously) the violence. My parents still argue about who allowed me to watch it and both of them say that they would never let me watch such a movie. I think they only say that knowing that I have such strong feelings about it ;0) I am currently reading the book (out of morbid curiosity and the fact that it's a classic) and it is really a great story. However I don't think that it should have been made into a cartoon. Ever. Well, maybe kids nowadays would find it quaint but it gave me nightmares for weeks and weeks and I still have a hard time seeing rabbits drawn in a similar way. Gives me a little heart palpitation every time. Yah I am a wuss but I strongly suggest that any parent looking to show this movie to their kids, read them the book instead or watch it first to make certain that they approve of the content. Not everyone finds it as disturbing as I did but we are out there ;0) | 0 |
train_22280 | Good lord, whoever made this turkey needs to be buried alive. I'm sorry, but the other reviewer must not have seen this movie, he must be watching something else, or have never seen a movie before... 9 out of ten stars? He's saying what, this is as good as Ben Hur or Gone With the Wind? Unintentionally funny, massively unbelievable characters, absurd situations, looks like it was shot in Griffith Park (which works out pretty well--MASH was shot in Griffith Park), crappy script, just about everything that could possibly be wrong with a movie all rolled into one package. Should be required viewing for all prospective film makers as an example of how a movie could be horribly wrong. It reminds me of something a USC student may make for a film class. Give this one a pass unless you do drugs and are into high camp. | 0 |
train_10842 | So I rented "Still Crazy" instead. When I described Hardcore Logo to the guy at the video store, he said that sounded kind of like Still Crazy. So I rented it. Was I disappointed? Well, yes, as Still Crazy focuses on a classic rock band rather than a punk band, but that's OK. Still Crazy tells the story of the Strange Fruit, a rock band that broke up in the 70s at the peak of their popularity at a large rock festival. Twenty years later, the band members are all struggling to make a living, and are offered the opportunity to play a concert at the twenty year anniversary of this festival. They take up the offer and decide to reform on a permanent basis, touring Europe in the process. Some quite funny hijinks ensue, and all the characters go through subtle changes. Watching this movie, you feel more like a viewer of a carefully edited documentary than a participant. And that's not bad at all. | 1 |
train_13817 | When the folks at Kino Video assembled their fine "Slapstick Encyclopedia" collection, a multi-cassette selection of silent comedies, someone decided to kick off the first installment with ONE TOO MANY (1916), an obscure one-reel farce made in Florida starring the very young Oliver Hardy. As enjoyable as the set is over all, this decision was an unfortunate one, for ONE TOO MANY is a very poor film which almost discourages the viewer from watching further. Like any typical farce, this one involves deception inspired by greed, panic when plans go awry, and complications escalating to the point of absurdity, but unlike the good ones, ONE TOO MANY is incoherent, unfunny, and downright annoying. It's hard to tell at this point whether the hopelessly confusing plot is the result of missing footage or inept film-making, but whatever the cause, by the halfway point even the most alert viewer has no idea what the character relationships are or what is happening, and by the end one no longer cares.The only point of interest here is seeing the 24 year-old "Babe" Hardy, who appears considerably heavier than he would a decade later when he teamed with Stan Laurel, but who is nonetheless full of youthful energy. In the opening scene, awakening with a hangover, Babe performs a highly athletic backward roll off a bed. Trust me, that's as funny as this movie gets. If you read this before seeing the first cassette of Kino's "Slapstick Encyclopedia" I suggest you fast-forward past this one and skip to the good stuff. | 0 |
train_20188 | Terrible film made on a budget of about $9.99. Very obvious miniature sets used, poor acting and an awful storyline concerning aliens who use discarded meat from a butcher shop as fuel for their spaceship. The film contains some blood (not enough to disturb) and a character with an eggbeater replacing one of his hands. (Yes you read that correctly.)One saving grace was a song performed at the "talent show" (how's that for irony?) by a punk/new wave band that I think was called "I'm A Heat Seeking Missile". Other than that, this is not worth your time, not even on a "so bad it's good" level. Watch if you are into cheesy alien films, but anyone else should steer clear. Rating: 1 out of 10 | 0 |
train_13907 | After Life is a Miracle, I did not expect much. It's hard to believe that these films were made by the same man as Do You Remember Dolly Bell, for instance. Zavet is two hours of silly antics with no story. The wild and unbridled humor of Underground seems to have degenerated into pathetic buffoonery here. It appears that Kusturica has been going steadily downhill since he started making life-affirming comedies, beginning with Black Cat, White Cat, which I think was great, but already had some disturbing signs of dementia. I liked his early films so much, and this is why it's especially disappointing to see something like this. Let's hope his next one will be great. | 0 |
train_18853 | For a comedic writer, Woody Allen really lets the paying viewer down with this meager attempt at character development. There are a few entertaining moments, but no more than one would have listening to their dryer tumbling tennis balls.Will Ferrell wastes his time in this movie which fails to showcase his usually funny delivery. Amanda Peet did well, but again, didn't have the room to move in this otherwise corpse like movie. The movie is so heavy and dull that it cannot be carried but if it were carried, Radha Mitchell did it. If you enjoy movies that go on and on in one scene and don't really accomplish anything but to show that their writer can write a few lines of snappy dialogue on occasion, then you'll love this movie. | 0 |
train_14459 | The Tooth Fairy is about the ghost of an old deformed witch that lures children to her house to get a prize for their loose tooth and then takes their lives. The first few minutes introduce you to the 1949 beginning of the legend of the tooth fairy and then switches to present day. The worn out horror plot is pretty much saved by the solid acting. They could have done without the Hammond brothers and a few other scenes, but overall the gore scenes were bloody but quick which had a minimizing effect. The eye candy is pretty good for both genders. Camera work is good. Dialog is fair but cheesy. I expected the film to be a bare bones, low budget, slasher with very few redeeming factors. I was surprised by the quality of the film. | 0 |
train_4495 | Outside the household is a different world and the family struggle to tread the line between Dads authority and their hopes and dreams. The period is captured; The bakelite light swithes, the Georgian floorpan, the picture rails, the wall paper, the short skirts, the cheeky lads, the Mini van, shiny modern mangles.... The location is captured; A wind lashed glacier hewn rocky landscape, walls of local stone, community, freedom. But there is much much more; Childhood, happiness, sensuality, pride, values, freedom, authority, rebellion, violence (in the deepest sense), love, struggle, puberty, naivety, morality, trust, faith, deceit, machismo, manners, maturity, loss, poverty, sacrifice, horror, acceptence, revelation, comedy and parenthood are all there. (And in no particular order!). This film is a richly woven expression of family tensions that are as relevent today as ever. The fact that some of these aren't tackled directly is testament in itself to the attitudes of the day but the fact that they are all here is a testament to the acting skill, the story and the direction. If there's anything bad about this film, it's that all this deeply entrenched and wonderfully enacted tension is swept away a little too lightly towards the end. Maybe I missunderstand - the doom and gloom felt by many teenagers really does disappear if they deal with it (**) - maybe the film is trying to send even that message too - well worth doing. What is the film trying to say? Kids: Parents were young too, parents struggle too, everyone makes mistakes, everyone learns, things change, struggle can end happily. Parents: Don't try too hard! Try to remember that your support is the key to their well being. It sounds simplistic doesn't it? Sometimes the film feels like that too but it's then that you notice how much is being being challenged and uncovered. The film is a classic.(**) - Not the problems themsleves. | 1 |
train_11723 | Since the start of her career in the 70's and vastly throughout the exuberant 80's, Elvira (Cassandra Peterson) has grown into a modest icon and genuine cult figure in the world of horror & bad monster movies. While Ms. Peterson has taken on various supporting roles in motion pictures, covering a wide variety in genres, it was her TV-character Elvira that brought her the most fame. Part of her charm and respect from the fans lies in the fact she never turned her back on the horror genre that made her famous (unlike many other big name actors & actresses that like to distantiate themselves from their "early" work). I've seen only bits & pieces of her TV performances, but her cameo role in Ghoultown's recent tribute song "Mistress of the Dark" really encouraged me to check out more of her stuff. One thing had been clear to me already long before this music video: Over the years, Elvira had become a force of influence herself by the time the mid-80's came around.And in 1988, after films like "Fright Night" and "TerrorVision" incorporated homages to and spoofs on her TV-work, it finally happened: "Elvira, Mistress of the Dark", the motion picture. Now, I had seen the trailer for it already back in the VHS rental days, but it took me until last week to finally see the actual film. A few years ago, I did manage to watch "Elvira's Haunted Hills" (made in 2001), but for some reason it didn't impress me all that much. Was it really that forgettable, or should I give it another watch? I actually really do feel like re-watching it now, as this first Elvira film from '88 really convinced me. Though perhaps partly responsible for making this film work, might be Sam Egan and John Paragon with their contributions to the script, there really is no way to deny it: Cassandra Peterson has a great feel for comedy (she also co-wrote the screenplay).When Elvira learns she's one of the beneficiaries of a Great Aunt (she never heard of before), she takes it as the long cherished opportunity to start up her own show in Las Vegas. Out to claim her rightfully inherited money, she travels to a quiet New England town. But the uptight townspeople of Falwell are in for a treat. In less than no time she manages to shock and insult all noteworthy inhabitants of the conservative little town with her (often unintentionally) provocative behaviour. To make things worse, her inheritance turns out not to be what she expected: A rundown mansion, a cookbook and a poodle. But what she doesn't know, and her evil uncle Vincent Albot does, is that her Great Aunt was a witch, and the cookbook contains recipes to concoct the most hellishly dark powers imaginable. And if you haven't turned off the movie yet by the time Elvira has cooked up her first dish from the recipe-book, then rest assured, you're going to sit out this ride with a smile on your face.It's surprising how a script rigged together with boob-jokes, witty one-liners, movie references, inside jokes and bade taste merriment also manages to tell a coherent story. Simple, of course, but coherent. While other movies, heavily relying on gag-like situations, often make you loose track of the story completely (like the "Naked Gun" films, for example), this film doesn't. A lot of horror-comedies were being produced during the 80's, but not a lot of them actually worked. Let alone a horror-spoof that doesn't derail at some point ("Killer Party", although I'm grateful for this one going completely bonkers during the finale) or becomes too tedious too quickly ("Saturday the 14th"). Although "Elvira" is more comedy than horror, it doesn't loose track of what it's doing and consistently builds up towards a mildly grotesque finale, complete with a supernatural showdown in the streets of Falwell between newborn witch Elvira and evil uncle wizard Talbot, including a real honest-to-god witch hunt and Elvira's very own burn-at-the-stake moment.I'm telling you, there's no power in hell that could make this movie unfunny. One of the first giggles I got was during the opening credits already, when Daniel Greene's name appeared. Daniel who? Oh yes, I recognized his name (and later on his dim-witted macho-face). How can one not forget Daniel Greene once you've seen... "Atomic Cyborg aka Fists of Steel"! But if you haven't seen "Atomic Cyborg", then I'm sorry, but you won't be able to laugh with his face in this one. And on a side-note: I never could have imagined Elvira looking this cool while ignorantly driving away from a gas station. Even Robert Rodriguez could not have made that shot look any better. | 1 |
train_9240 | Found this flick in a videostore, it cost $2 to buy. The whole movie stinks really bad! The so-called colonel, who would the hero here if the cover could have been trusted, must be in his eighties and is barely able to walk. He nevertheless manages to shoot some of the dumbest ninjas in the world. Then the story leaves the colonel, which makes sense given the old man's inability to DO anything worth mentioning, a now two terrifyingly eighties-looking guys take over, in what must have been some sort of story. I got lost a hundred times but didn't mind, because the movie is so bad, it's real fun to watch. Zero-Budget trash with actors not deserving that name. Go check it out! | 1 |
train_5923 | A woman who hates cats (Alice Krige) and her son (Brian Krause) have moved into a small town, and must deal with a mean teacher (Glenn Shadix), their incestuous relationship, a lovely girl (Mädchen Amick) and one hell of a big secret.Okay, so technically, this is a "bad film". But, who cares? It's so very fun! Impossible things (involving corn) happen, people freak out about kitty cats, there's bad one-liners, there's too much cheese to handle!So, yes. You will enjoy this. A lot. It won't move you, touch you, scare you, or thrill you in any way, but it will keep you entertained and laughing! | 1 |
train_21273 | If you have seen very less films, this might be a big one for you. If you have seen lot of films, this is a joke. The acting of real heroes is portrayed very badly. Not to mention, there are songs, there are lot of flashbacks, and most importantly, the fighting scenes are stupidily performed. New characters, good direction, would have done a better job, but since it contains all the bollywood heros/heroines, you can predict whats going to happen next. You do not feel sad when something happens, the emotions they protray is terrible, mainly because we have seen this actor in 1000 other hindi movies. It suppose to be a realistic movie, but it fails to show. There are times you wondering, you have thousands of army vehical filled with soldiers moving and the pakistanis are bombing at them and none of their bomb hits them. Are the pakis really bad at aiming or the director made them look stupid? There were only a few characters acting that was very good, but as far it is concerned with plot, action, it is poorly directed. This movie could have been short if they took out songs, flashbacks, stick to the point. | 0 |
train_19652 | Based on a self-serving novel by one-time girl friend and groupie of F. Scott Fitzgerald, gossip columnist Sheila Graham wrote this trashy story. Gregory Peck carries on in shameless excess as a forceful be-drunk-or-be-damned alcoholic; in contradiction to the gentle and soft spoken real Scott Fitzgerald. Focusing on Fitzgerald's Hollywood writing era, late in his life, the much-honored author was, in fact, living a quiet life and effectively fighting his alcoholism at a time when AA was not yet well known. Fitzgerald was none-too-proud to be recycling his flapper stories in order to support both his wife (in a mental hospital) and his daughter (in college). Living in a small apartment and driving a second hand Chevrolet his life was 180 degrees different than as portrayed in this movie.Virtually every 20th Century-Fox movie made during Daryll F. Zanuck's leadership, as well as virtually every film directed by Henry King, was a work of excellence. Beloved Infidel was the exception. | 0 |
train_24652 | Some news reporters and their military escorts try to tell the truth about a epidemic of zombies, despite the 'government controlling the media'. The makings of the film don't understand that the George Romero zombie films only worked because he kept his politics subtly in the background of most of his films ("Land of the Dead" withstanding). This satire is about as subtle as a brick to the face or a bullet to the head is more apropos for this scenario. What's subversive or subtle about seeing a military guy masturbating to death and destruction? Anything nuanced about the various commercials that are inter-cut with the film? Nope. Furthermore the acting is uniformly horrible, the characters thoroughly unlikable, and the plot inane. Add this all up and you have the worst, most incompetent zombie film since, "C.H.U.D. 2" reared it's hideous head.My Grade: D | 0 |
train_4392 | I enjoyed this film very much.Tobey Maguire gives a terrific performance as Jake. He has got to be one of the best actors I have seen. And I was surprised there were so many humorous lines throughout the film. He was extremely good at this too although I have never seen him deliver a comic line before. The film gets you involved with the characters and really makes you wonder what is to become of them all. I did not know what to expect from Jewel's performance but I think she did rather well. Lots of exciting scenes. A thoroughly good ride. I am absolutely a fan of Maguire's. Check out Cider House Rules. One of the all time Best Ever. | 1 |
train_17074 | I went into this film expecting it to be similar to The Matrix or Pi. Boy, was I wrong. Yes, there is a poorly written, poorly acted plot in the movie (with CG animated cells and peptides to boot). However, the real focus of the film are the "expert" talking heads spewing out new age feel-good hogwash in between plot segments.Sure, it stars off innocently enough. There is a little bit of real quantum physics in the beginning. It states, for example, that electrons exist as both particle and wave, and that an atom is mostly empty space. However, the movie takes a giant (and unscientific) leap, saying that sub-atomic quantum effects happen on large scales as well. The talking heads take it even further. According to them, the following are true:-When Columbus arrived in the Caribbean, the natives were unable to see his ships because their minds were incapable of perceiving something so different. -Meditation can reduce the murder rate. -With positive thought, you can walk on water. -Your thoughts can change the formations of ice crystals in bottles of water.And hey, that's only in the first 40 minutes!Watching the movie was torture. This film felt like a movie they would show you to get you to join a cult. After doing my homework, I realized that it basically is just that.On the other hand, this could be seen as a campy comedy (albeit one that's not funny).Save your time and money: don't see this movie. | 0 |
train_14414 | it aint bad, but it aint good. it is just entertaining.as a comedy which it is supposed to be, it's dreadful. not many laughs at all as every joke in the movie has been done a million times before.it's a shame as all the actors in the film are great usually, but none of them really do much. and the ending sucks. | 0 |
train_5948 | Some of the posters seem less than gruntled because this is neither Mark Twain nor Rodgers and Hart but clearly it doesn't pretend to be either. You'll look a long time to find a greater Rodgers and Hart fan than me but Burke and Van Heusen weren't exactly chopped liver in addition to which they knew Der Bingle inside out and tailored some great songs - But Beautiful, Moonlight Becomes You, It's Always You, The Day After Forever, etc - to fit his highly personal style and here they come up with yet another fine - and unfairly neglected - ballad, Once And For Always, plus a couple of upbeat philosophy-lite entries in If You Stub Your Toe On The Moon and Busy Doing Nothing. The flimsy plot isn't meant to be taken seriously - why else make Merlin a heavy when in most, if not all, of the other versions he is more a friend/mentor to Arthur - so if you start wondering aloud why Sir Lancelot who has been sold to historians as the epitome of chivalry and uprightness metamorphoses into a schoolyard bully you're not going to get much fun out of what is essentially a fun movie. On balance it does what it sets out to do, entertain, so good luck to it. | 1 |
train_8054 | "Enter the Fat Dragon" is one of the funniest martial art movies I had the opportunity to see. Sammo Hung portrays a Chinese farm boy that comes to visit a city friend. Just like Tang Lung of "Way of the Dragon." Wherever Sammo goes, trouble starts, therefore he has to rely on his martial art skills to solve the differences. Luckily, Sammo's character learns martial arts by imitating and mimicking his idol, Bruce Lee. He even strokes his nose with his thumb exactly the way Bruce Lee does and also releases his screeching yell. He also uses nunchucks in a scene. It was like watching a fat Bruce Lee. There's a great showdown near the end of the movie which consists of foreign fighters. Sammo has to encounter each opponent one by one. Sort of like "The Game of Death", where each fighter possesses a different martial art discipline from one another.This is one of the films I really enjoyed watching and also the very first Sammo Hung movies I've seen. Excellent fight scenes and a lot of laughs. A rare classic Sammo Hung film I highly recommend for all you martial art fans out there. 8.5/10! | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.