id stringlengths 7 11 | text stringlengths 52 10.2k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|---|
train_11369 | There I was sitting alone in my flat on a Saturday night with the choice of watching CITIZEN X or The Eurovision Song Contest , and for the benefit of Americans reading this I'll explain that TESC is an annual event where musicians from countries all over Europe and Asia Minor have a song contest. At the end of the contest countries vote to see what the best song was . It's a contest that is even less exciting than it sounds and it may not come as a shock when I say that singing and songwriting isn't of the calibre of Lennon and McCartney . And I should correct something in the first sentence of this review because the word " Choice " is misleading because being a music lover I wasn't going to watch TESC under any circumstance.So I sat down as the credits rolled for CITIZEN X expecting a run of mill serial killer whodunnit , but I'd be misleading everyone calling it that. It's obvious within the first 10 minutes of CITIZEN X whodunnit . What the film does is point out the failures of communism : " A serial killer comrade ! This is the Soviet Union , serial killers can only exist in decadent imperialist capitalist systems " This farcical attitude goes far beyond denial , there's a scene where an undercover cop sits in a freezing train station keeping an eye out for potential suspects whilst wearing his police jacket because it's the only warm coat he's got ! And of course all suspects who are members of the communist party are released without interrogation something which will affect the final death toll . All this is very well done as we are shown that it's the communist party system that's on trial but about two thirds of the way through CITIZEN X we find ourselves in 1990 as communism is on its last legs and reforms to the police investigation have taken place . It's at this point that the film becomes rather uninteresting due to a lack of political subtext and the film descends into an average manhunt film . But don't let that put you off , CITIZEN X is an intelligent thriller well played by the cast especially Donald Sutherland as a paternal police chiefStrangely enough a few years ago I read something written by the famous criminologist Colin Wilson in which he said something along the lines that serial killers let themselves get caught so that they will be the center of attention in the media spotlight , and I found myself almost sympathising the party chiefs denying there could be a serial killer in the Soviet Union. After all media is controlled by the party and anyone who's old enough to have listened to Radio Moscow or read English translations of Pravda will know that the USSR only reported news stories like potato harvests , coal production and thank you letters from Afghanistan , Cuba etc for Soviet assistance . The concept of becoming a serial killer in a communist system is illogical . But I guess if a tree falls in a remote Siberian forest it will still make a sound even though no one is around to hear it . | 1 |
train_1469 | I admit creating great expectations before watching because some friends mentioned it (and they are not pervs!) as a must see. And it is a must see! Just don't expect to see something outbreaking.The Freudian psychoanalyzes are interesting in many parts of the film, but there's just too much perversion and it doesn't stick in the end.Some of the good things are the analyzes of Kieslowski's Blue, most of David Lynch's, some of Hitchcock's and perhaps a couple more I missed (I just remembered...Dogville), and I usually don't miss things unless they are too obvious or loose in the air.Other than being repetitive, which makes it too long, the documentary is enjoyable in the sense of noticing some perversions fed by our unconscious, hence the commercial success of most thrillers studied and used as basis for this theory.I really enjoyed the energetic tone of the narration and the effort of Mr. Zizek to revive Freud's theory, which has been numb for too long, specially in north America. Again, it's way over the top and I believe not to be a completely waste of time for I do believe most humans have a dark appreciation for death and blood. | 1 |
train_1022 | Stargate is the best show ever. All the actors are absolutely perfect for there roles. I love the connection between the characters. If you have not seen this show I very highly recommend it. Although this program is compared to Star trek a lot of the time it actually can't be because it is completely different. I am a star trek fan but i would definitely rate this show well above any of the star treks. Unfortunately I live in New Zealand and we do not get Stargate on our TV so if i want to see it I have to buy the DVDs and season 10 is not out here yet so i can not see it for quite some time (which is highly depressing). However this program is very very good and is a must see, but be warned it is highly addictive. So in summery I Love Stargate (and Amanda Tapping). | 1 |
train_7813 | It's a shame that this piece of work wasn't acknowledged as a piece of work. It has everything a historical film must have: a serious historical research, outstanding performances of every actor involved and a discrete but great direction.When I saw the movie I knew it should be a prototype for every biographical movie. | 1 |
train_4052 | This is quite an amazing film to watch. Using digital technology, the director, Rohmer, has literally encrusted his living actors into painted backdrops. Most of the time this works brilliantly, especially at the start where the film is like a pop up story book come to life. It is less successful in a few scenes, where it limits camera angles (they had not painted the side of some of the buildings for example) but it is a very interesting way to film a historical film which is as much about our own misconceptions and limited views of history as History itself. It is narrated using the memoirs of the Duc d'Orleans' ex- mistress, Grace Elliott. So, an event usually claimed as one of their own by Marxist historians, especially in France, is here told from the point of view of a female aristocratic foreigner. Inevitably a different point of view emerges -there can be no objective representation. The use of the memoirs device does give the film a rather episodic quality. Personally, I found the story line around the King's death the most interesting. A staunch Royalist she is shocked when the Duc votes for the King's death (a basic knowledge of the French Revolution is probably helpful to follow the dialogue between Grace and the Duc here. He was Louis's cousin and had himself elected to the Assembly, where he promptly changed his name to Philip Equality). The filming of Louis's death is masterly. Grace and her maidservant are in Meudon, out of Paris, watching from a hill with a telescope. We do not see the execution, we only hear the maid's commentary, like Grace. The most dramatic event of the Revolution happens off screen. Grace cannot bear to watch her king be killed. Her view is that of an aristocrat. Any justification of Louis's death is literally beyond her vision. This is powerful, keenly intelligent film making. The love story between the duc and Grace is insinuated, never told, and is powerfully moving (tho the Duc does seem a bit of a pompous fool at times; what does she see in him? No accounting for taste). The undercurrents of madness (simply existing being enough to be a suspect) that sweep individuals along in a time such as the Revolution are illustrated as Grace's life is turned upside down, her house is searched daily, yet she still orders her servants to cook her food and is incapable of dressing herself! If you have any interest at all in a subtle, well told film, making clever use of new technology to tell an old tale, or the representation of a pivotal moment in Europe's history narrated by an aristocratic foreign woman, its ultimate outsider, then this is well worth your time. It is a little slow in places but your patience is amply rewarded. | 1 |
train_24735 | If you want to know what kind of music white people listened to in 1974, this is the movie for you. But you'll have to listen to a lot of flutes and violins, too (see my remarks on My Girl 1 for the reference).Indulgent admission: I approached My Girl 2 with cynicism and annoyance, having just viewed its predecessor. But as an adoptee preparing to finally set upon a search for my birthmother, My Girl 2 made me look, with its theme of searching for mother.Put another way, anything I liked about My Girl 2 had nothing whatsoever to do with My Girl 2, but relating to a protagonist who asks, like so many adoptees, "who's my mama"? And if there are home movies of my mom in an acting troupe, I'll be sure to make my own movie about it.People are listless. Movies should not be listless. My Girl 2 (like My Girl 1) is just...listless.Avoid unless you're a complete sap who's comforted by a series of small annoyances. | 0 |
train_9678 | Made me wish my own happy birds could talk. Tisk tisk on the reviewer who dissed the movie. A sweet story that people of all ages will enjoy. Paulie is a lovable little treasure. He has quite a few clever lines that truly made me laugh. I especially loved the dance sequences during his showbiz stint. You can forgive the obvious clichés as you cheer him on in his quest to be reunited with Marie. A charming movie featuring two strong characters who genuinely befriend the little parrot separated from his young owner. Would have liked to have seen more of the woman who becomes blind and must abandon their mutual journey. I liked her artistic and poetic inspirations, a shame she could not share Paulie's reunion. Bless Paulie in his new home, at last with Marie, perhaps joined by the nice young man who helped him defeat the antagonists to complete his journey. | 1 |
train_9761 | Now here's a film straight out of my childhood, my family used to taped; but it kind of got tapped over and losted over the years. Now I was fortunate to watch the whole film on youtube.com; I had love this wonderful film when I watched it as kid, and after watching again (online), I still do today. My favorite song from the movie is "Candy Hearts and Paper Flowers" (I will always remember that sweet song forever). I was surprised when I looked at the opening credits (on who animated who),that some of the animators date back to 1930s (WOW! that's like 47 years). | 1 |
train_11223 | Tommy JOnes and Matt Dillon do the gambling world proud. The various moves with the wrists had to be learned as throwing craps is a skill in and of itself.There are a few surprises. AS cynical as we are today, I fully expected the 'good girl' to be crying over his grave, instead of his Buddy's. Especially with her remarks about 'going to the funeral of her best friend', when she first meets Matt. And then of course you expect Matt to kill the guy who threw battery acid in Mr. Allen's face, blinding him (interesting role by Bruce Dern). WRRROOONNNNGGG!!! some of the other Hollywood endings DO happen, but the writing is so excellent, the acting so carefully wrought that you're blissfully unaware.And the music is OUT OF THIS WORLD. Taking us back to the 50s when our 'native passions' were first being unleashed by the music of Ray Charles and Bo Diddley. Even a little racism raring its ugly head in Chicago, but at a club called, wonderfully, 'Biloxi' with a Confederate flag backing up the racist remarks. I'll be watching it again, just to hear the music. Good thing I have the FACTOTUM sound track, so I can listen to that in the car. Watch both together, and you'll see how Matt has matured....playing bar room characters in both. NOw that he owns a bar in the Paramount HOtel in NYC, he probably has great opportunity to do his studies. Great actor, just coming into his own. He shows finely nuanced performances ...the good and the bad in his characters. His 'young boy off the farm' is a great study, made especially poignant because of his bassett-hound eyes. He makes love, convincingly as well. Since he was in several movies with Diane Lane as a teen-ager, I wonder how that it ...making love to an actress you kinda grew up with. Adds conviction, I'll say that. | 1 |
train_23625 | Hey look, deal with it, there are much better portrayals of the hardship of black America than this. Although I think this story is weak, my criticism is focused on the poor execution of the story, which I have mentioned, blows.This was made in the mid-80's and is horrible in the music/score department. It's funny to see Oprah as a latter-day crack-whore type.The scene where Bigger stuffs Elizabeth McGovern into the incinerator. Pure classic cinema. First off, I don't care how drunk you are, you will react to 1200F degree flame (no matter how bad your acting). But they really milked that scene...it was comical. I'll tell you what though, I had great satisfaction in seeing Elizabeth McGovern burn in a faux death; she annoys me. | 0 |
train_1219 | The second Care Bears movie is immensely better than its predecessor. It has a deeper plot, better character development, and the tunes (especially the closing song) are both catchy and warm-hearted. Sure the movie tends to over stress caring but come on, it IS a Care Bears movie. This movie is a great picture to show to kids because it emphasizes friendship, love, and again, caring. Not to mention the Care Bears are just too adorable! | 1 |
train_19229 | Evidently lots of people really like this, but I found it infantilising and reasonably offensive codswallop, saved from oblivion by Jane Russell and a couple of memorable musical numbers, especially the opener (but there's a marked dip in invention later on). I don't get on with Monroe - she's supposed to be playing a dumb blonde who ain't that dumb, but she just comes over as dumb. Russell can't quite convince when she claims never to have been in a gymnasium, but is otherwise rather wonderful. The men are staggeringly uninteresting, as is the plot. By no means atrocious, but so patchy that, if this is a classic, God help us all. | 0 |
train_1755 | This movie is a riot. I cannot remember the last time I had such a great time at the movies. I've seen a few good comedies in my time and usually they are pretty funny. But this one is wall to wall great lines. I think Best in Show is the last movie that I laughed so hard and so much in. The movie was non-stop until the end when they did the 5 minutes of sentimental plot clean up. Other than that it's a constant barrage of one liners and goofy situations. I'd like to see it again before it leaves the theater because this is like the Zucker movies where you don't get all the jokes the first time around. You have to see it two or three times to get it all in.As far as the actual film goes, it could have used a better edit, it's choppy at times but we have to be forgiving for that. All the characters are great. It's not like an Adam Sandler movie where he tries to be funny and everyone else suffers around him and is the butt of the joke. I think I will remember all the main characters for years to come because they are all so likable. No victims in this movie. Also, thank God they got a 45 year old actress to play his girlfriend. Catherine Keener plays her and she is a sweetheart in this film. You just wish that women like her really existed. She's not a "10" like some of the other leading ladies but somehow her smile is warmer than Julia Roberts overdone overbite.If you see the trailer for this film you may not think too highly of it. I assure you, the trailer does not do it justice. They do not give away all the good jokes. Just some of the mediocre ones.Oh and one more thing. I hope critics put this on their top ten list. Many of them complain that comedies don't get the recognition they deserve and then at the end of the year they don't put it on their list. This means you Ebert!!! | 1 |
train_20892 | This is the type of movie where it actually hurts to acknowledge that it really, really sucks. I normally sanctify stuff like this! Early 70's grindhouse flicks with scrumptious sounding titles and a schlocky low-budget atmosphere usually ROCK. "House of Seven Corpses" appeared to dispose of even more trumps, since the cast is a gathering of great genre veterans (including John Carradine, John Ireland and Faith Domergue) and the filming locations (the titular house, the graveyard) are obviously very expedient for a gloomy tale of terror. The film opens with its absolute greatest and most hauntingly memorable sequences, though sadly enough they're the only ones that qualify as such. The credits are a splendid montage, complete with freakish color-effects and eerie freeze-frames, illustrating how the titular house received its notorious reputation. The last seven owners were mysteriously murdered here and the credits montage gleefully exhibits their final moments. Someone falls down the balcony screaming, a lady drowns in her bathtub, and another female body hangs dangling from the ceiling and four more macabre tableaux. Needless to say the house is cursed and the awkward behavior of t caretaker Mr. Price (Carradine) only fortify this reputation. In other words, the house forms the ideal turf for the acclaimed director Eric Hartman (John Ireland) to shoot his satanic horror film project. The film-within-film structure is what mainly causes "House of Seven Corpses" to be so boring and uneventful. A lot of movie-material is wasted on crew members putting films spools in the camera and dragging around cables or even worse Faith Domergue and Charles Macaulay portraying horridly intolerable actor stereotypes. The plot finally gets a little interesting (only a little, mind you) when one of the characters reads some lines from an occult book and accidentally awakes a rotting corpse in the backyard. The asthmatic (judging by the noises he produces) zombie slowly heads for the house and kills the entire movie crew, reminiscent of how the previous seven turned into corpses. After a running time of approximately 60 minutes, the film suddenly turns from humdrum into just plain weird and confusing. I'm still unsure whether the final twist has to do with the concept of reincarnation or just coincidence and all the remaining characters suddenly seem to go undergo vast mental transformations shortly before they die, for some reason. I honestly regret confirming "House of Seven Corpses" is a pretty dreadful movie. The locations and scenery are gloomy chilling, but not nearly used to full effect and there's a serious lack of gruesome bloodshed. Numerous low-budgeted 70's gems were stunningly gross, so the lack of financial means is no excuse and the film-within-film murders really don't count. Even the always-reliable veteran stars deliver hammy performances and Harrison's direction is completely uninspired. Not recommended, unless you think the zero cool four-and-a-half minute playing opening credits montage is worth the effort of purchasing a copy. | 0 |
train_2137 | This is far more than the charming story of middle-aged man discovering the pleasures of ballroom dancing (although it IS that as well). It's the tale of one person learning to love life again, pushing past all the pressures of work and money to discover joy once more. The bonus in this film is a fascinating insight into the slowly changing attitudes of modern Japan toward everything from ballroom dancing to physical contact. There are scenes that will make you laugh out loud ... a few where you'll want to get up and tango ... and many others where you'll just feel good.This is a great introduction to contemporary Japanese filmmaking for those who might be under the impression that all Japanese movies are "heavy" and inaccessible. | 1 |
train_17255 | I thought the film was good in parts.the start was exciting .the first 30 minutes of the film were good.the camera angles in the first 30 minutes were strange and i did not like it coz the were they not covering the actors entirely.i think the last 25 minutes of the film were really not that great from which we expect a lot in case of such films.the dialoques did not make sense and i don't think they were very witty.i felt as if they were trying to copy films like phonebooth in terms of dialogues,but failed miserably.it seemed as if they many of the scenes between the actors were put for sake of it and did not make any sense to the story.the entire film features only law and caine.i don't think it was a waste of time,its an OK film,but not gr8 | 0 |
train_9815 | Being the first feature film with Robert De Niro (although not released for years later), this is worth the watch. De Niro's role isn't huge, yet amusing as one of two friends who first try to prevent another friends marriage only to later chase him down to force him into it. Any die hard De Niro fan will get a kick out of an early performance by arguably the best actor today. | 1 |
train_12506 | From the beginning of the movie, it gives the feeling the director is trying to portray something, what I mean to say that instead of the story dictating the style in which the movie should be made, he has gone in the opposite way, he had a type of move that he wanted to make, and wrote a story to suite it. And he has failed in it very badly. I guess he was trying to make a stylish movie. Any way I think this movie is a total waste of time and effort. In the credit of the director, he knows the media that he is working with, what I am trying to say is I have seen worst movies than this. Here at least the director knows to maintain the continuity in the movie. And the actors also have given a decent performance. | 0 |
train_18021 | I just came from seeing this movie and decided to see what others thought of it. I'm left wondering if these people who give glowing reviews saw the same film! This is potentially a very good story, but it fails to hit the mark. The script is very weak - the plot has so many holes that it would make a great dip net for the fishing scenes. The characters were not well developed and the storyline jumps around so much that I found myself asking the question "How did we get here?" at least a half dozen times during the movie.There was a lack of any chemistry between the cast members. This is probably related to Lindsay Lohan's antics during the filming. It was pretty clear that everyone showed up and did their job, but didn't commit to their roles.This is not a movie worth seeing...go for a walk, play a board game, take a nice warm bath and save your money for something that's worth it! | 0 |
train_11676 | If you loved Long Way Round you will enjoy this nearly as much. It is educational, funny, interesting and tense. Charley shares the screen with two interesting teammates, two tired mechanics, two excellent cameramen and too much Russ. Ewan makes a few appearances but Charley really pulls it off alone. He is funny, engaging and still a puddle of stress and doubt. Great stuff!The series wraps up in 7 episodes. Like LWR, the preparation is nearly as interesting as the race. Though they cover the ins and outs of the race well, there could be a bit more explanation of the trucks and cars, which are merely mentioned and rarely even seen racing. It is a motorcycle movie though and anyone on two wheels will love this. The series features stunning photography as well as a few interviews of peoples mouths. Yikes. There is another extremely catchy theme song like LWR but this one is not nearly as good as the Stereophonics.If you live in the US god knows when it will be released so buy it on Amazon.uk and watch it on your computer as I did. Oh, and be prepared to buy another motorbike. | 1 |
train_19166 | I really wanted to like this film, but the story is ridicules. I don't want to spoil this film, - don't worry right from the begin you know something bad is going to happen - but here's an example of how sloppy this film was put together. The Cowboy and "Twig" ride up the ridge. The Cowboy has a handle bar mustache. The Cowboy and "Twig" get into a shoot out and race half way down the ridge. The Cowboy is clean shaven through out the rest of the film. Sometime between the gun fight and the ride down the mountain the cowboy has had time to shave, in dark, on the back of a horse.To be fair, the acting by the four main characters is solid. | 0 |
train_14059 | This may very well be the worst movie I'll see if I live to be 100. I think a group of first-graders could have come up with better plot lines as a class project than this. I'm dumber for having watched it, and God have mercy on the souls who were paid to produce this film.And after I finally turned it off, I actually had the urge to vomit.No one had a clue about photography when made this. No one had a clue about acting. No one had a clue about just about anything.I can't believe F/X shows this crap on occasion. The only time I had seen it was on one of the Starz! channels - not even the main one. And it was on at about 3 a.m. at that. | 0 |
train_19890 | How do you spell washed up fat Italian who can barely pull off a martial arts move without needing some heart medication? In this movie we see Steven Seagal at his lowest level of accomplishment- since his career started it has been a steady decline into pathetic over indulgent behavior that has scuttled his career. In this movie it looks like most of his training consisted of ordering the fetuccini alfredo at his restaurant every day.He is fat, slow and very old looking in this movie, hardly a martial arts action hero, more like a laughing stock clown.It's time for Steven Seagal to retire- this movie is about 2 hours of reasons why.Plot: fat Italian guy with a big reputation on the force gets wind that a crime group may be playing around with a drug designed by the military to create the ultimate warrior response. This pretense, although pathetic and laughable, gives opportunity for some over the top fight scenes that include blasting through walls like a comic book.Did I mention this movie totally sucks and Steven Seagal is a complete joke? yeah. I did. | 0 |
train_5083 | In the hands of lesser actors than Claudette Colbert and Robert Ryan this film could have become silly and trite. But, with these two experienced thespians leading the way, I found "Silent Fury" to be a most exciting and pleasurable little mystery. When their wedding is interrupted by a stranger who claims that Colbert is already married, and that he was best man at that wedding, one can sense that there is some sort of plot against her at work. As Colbert, Ryan, and her attorney set out to disprove the strangers claim of a prior marriage, they are met at every turn by more evidence that seems to reinforce the claim that she is indeed already wed. Although it's not very difficult to figure out just who the main "baddie" is, it's still lots of fun as the intensity and pace of the story increases. All in all, a good, solid mystery film with fine performances by the two leading actors and a fine supporting cast which includes the often underrated Paul Kelly. | 1 |
train_13023 | It is amazing to me what passes for entertainment today. maybe I am a dinosaur from the fifties, and I am out of touch with todays movie going generation, and apparently that is the case with regards to this movie, since so many people loved it. I found it foul and vulgar. I haven't said that about many movies in my life but this one fits the bill. The humor is sophomoric and crude. I am not a politically correct person, and even I found the gay jokes, not only not funny but downright offensive ( I'm not gay). The main character in the movie is not even a likable person, just pathetic. When the movie was finally over i heard a number of people comment on how disappointed they were in what they had just pay good money to see. | 0 |
train_23561 | Curiosity led me to this "masterpiece". Unfortunately, I didn't rent it, I bought it! The most disturbing thing about this film is that it's not so disturbing. For reasons known only to them, the makers of this film set out to show the human side of Jeffry Dahmer. Are you kidding me? The man gave new meaning to the term "finger lickin' good"! And with all the flash-backs and flash-forwards I had trouble following the story. All in all Jeremy Renner's performance wasn't too bad. You can catch him in "S.W.A.T.", in which he plays a disgruntled ex-cop. Anyway, I would rate this as a 1/10. It only got a 1 because of Renner's so-so performance. There are plenty of books and tv documentaries out there that do a much better job of covering Dahmer's crimes. Avoid this one. | 0 |
train_463 | Of course the plot, script, and, especially casting are strong in the film. So many fine things to see. One aspect I liked especially is the idea of the antagonist--Luzhini's (Turturro's)--ex-mentor working his evil on the sidelines. His chess opponent--an Italian dandy in three piece and cane--turns out to be a real gent, and a truly fine chess player. To his credit the "opponent" nobly goes along with the plan at the end to complete the final game for the championship posthumously (Luzhin has taken a flyer out a window--sad, but so releasing to him)by way of the unstable genius' widow (Emily Watson.) In death, then, because of the gallantry of an honorable chess master, Luzhin's defence (which he worked out in a late moment of lucidity) is allowed to be played. The Italian gent commends the play and calls it brilliant. Talk about a dramatic "end game!" | 1 |
train_19443 | This movie is deeply idiotic. A man wants revenge for a crime- but when he enacts his revenge- there is a video camera pointed right at him the entire time. What man with a brain cell in his head would sit there and do this for so long in front of a video camera?Just the fact that this script could never even happen except with someone unable to dress themselves destroyed it for me- but it got dumber!!!I am thinking the script writers have some serious habits that are cooking their brain cells and making them miss plot holes you can drive an battalion of armored tanks through.PLOT: a man seeks revenge for the death of loved ones, but in the middle of the plot something goes totally wrong, and then the unexpected unfolds.If only these people writing this story hadn't been so dumb as to write totally unrealistic plot turns that could never happen this way. To the writers I say- seek help for your serious mental problem. | 0 |
train_10140 | Fans of the HBO series "Tales From the Crypt" are going to love this MOH episode. Those who know the basic archetypal stories that most of the classic EC comics were based on, will recognize this one right off the bat.Underrated indie favorite Martin Donovan (also an excellent writer - co-author of the screenplays for APARTMENT ZERO and DEATH BECOMES HER) is the kind of guy whose everyman good looks can go either way. He could play a really nice if misunderstood guy-next-door, or he can play the same role with a creepy undertone of corrosive sleaziness. In the case of RIGHT TO DIE, he takes the latter approach, and it definitely works.Donovan is a doctor who has recently had an affair with his slutty office receptionist (Robin Sydney), much to the displeasure of his inconsolable, unforgiving spouse, Abbey (Julia Anderson). When the two of them get involved in a terrible car accident while returning from an unsuccessful weekend of "making up," and she's horribly burned in a fire, he's reluctant to pull the plug on her, not without some enthusiastic nudging from his even sleazier lawyer and best buddy (Corbin Bernsen, looking the worse for wear these days.) But Abbey's never been one to give up without a fight, and that's where the EC-theme of the episode comes in. Cuckolded husbands - and wives - have always been the genre's favorite subject matter for some spooky (and OOKY) supernatural shenanigans, and this case is definitely no exception. If anything, the ramped-up quotient of sex and gore must have Bill Gaines cackling with glee in his mausoleum somewhere.And that's not to mention that John Esposito's original script does give the adultery angle just a slight twist. You don't realize as you're watching that you only know half the story, until close to the end...(think WHAT LIES BENEATH with more guts and gazongas, and you're there.)Not a bad effort, but not the best of the lot, either. At least Rob Schmidt does display touches of flair here and there with the direction, especially in a scene that makes cell phone picture messaging into a truly horrifying experience indeed! As with most MOH episodes, this one is following a prevalent theme this season of flaying and dismemberment, so the extremely squeamish need not apply. | 1 |
train_15740 | This is the first Guinea Pig film from Japan and this is the sickest, in my opinion. A bunch of guys torture a girl for several days before finally killing her. And at this point, I will say that these films are NOT real! They are faked horror films which try to be as realistic as possible.The scenes are sickening but also unrealistic in many cases. For example, when they kick the girl in the floor, we can clearly see how they kick and stump the floor near the girl! And how stupid this looks! The sound effects are also unrealistic and don't make sense. Other scenes include animal intestines thrown on the girl, the girl exposed to loud noises for many hours, the ripping off of fingernails, worms placed on the wounds in the girl's body, the eye pierced and mutilated in horrific detail and stuff like that. Very sick and mean spirited film and has absolutely nothing valuable or cinematically significant. This first entry is the sickest and most amateurish Guinea Pig, although it is not as bloody as the next part, Flowers of Flesh and Blood, which tries to be as shocking as possible.Guinea Pig: Devil's Experiment is perhaps the sickest thing I've seen and the closest thing to snuff there is. This is still (of course) faked s(n/t)uff, the only difference to genuine "snuff film" is that no one dies or hurts for real in this film. I cannot recommend this to anyone since thi s is so s****y and repulsive. They who consider this is a great horror film understand nothing about cinema and the real meaning of it. I watched this as a curiosity (as the other parts in the series) and now I know how insignificant trash these are. They work only in shock level and that's not too valuable cinematic achievement. Devil's Experiment is perhaps the sickest film I've seen and Mermaid in a Manhole (Guinea Pig 4) is perhaps the most disgusting film I've seen. So these are pretty extreme in my book, but that's all they are. | 0 |
train_13060 | It's not like I have overwhelmingly fond memories of Verhoeven's original pants-down shocker - it always struck me as a glossy, well-made airport-novel-of-a-movie. Thrilling, sexy trash, but trash nonetheless. It was also a film that tapped into a certain sexual zeitgeist. After a decade of anti-sex AIDS-induced hysteria, a film about a wildly-sexual hotbod who thrill-kills to heighten her sexual pleasure was pretty enticing stuff. Basic Instinct 2 was always going to struggle to provide the same social relevance and immediacy, so the fact that it's desperate attempts at raunchiness are so lame can sort-of be overlooked. All it really had to provide was that thin veneer of titillation and a mildly engaging story and all would have been watchable. That it resoundingly fails on so many levels, and in such a way to be a career nadir for everyone involved, is really quite extraordinary to watch. Let's state the obvious for starters - Sharon Stone is too old for the part of sexual magnet Catherine Trammell. What was so photogenic thru Verhoeven's lens looks like mutton dressed as lamb in the hands of gun-for-hire Michael Caton-Jones, who's flat, drab colours and static camera render her undeniable beauty totally moot. I like Sharon Stone a lot, but if the first film launched her career, BI2 could kill it. She has no chemistry with stuffed-shirt David Morrissey - their only sex scene is embarrassing too watch. His dough-faced mamma's boy of a character made me yearn for the swaggering, orange-skin machismo of Michael Douglas. Supporting turns by David Thewlis and Charlotte Rampling waste these fine actors on talky exposition scenes and cliché-heavy posturing. And what of the much-touted sexual shenanigans? Poorly-lit, fleetingly-glimpsed, as utterly mainstream as an episode of Desperate Housewives - the European sensibilities that Verhoeven brought to the sexual content of the first film are sorely missed. Don't watch this film for carnal thrills - there are none and what there is is tragic. The film is, as a whole, convoluted to the point of utter confusion, boring and laughable. The last 40 minutes in particular, where you come to the realisation that the film is, in fact, not going to go anywhere of interest at all, are particularly gruelling and hilarious in equal measure. As a failed sequel, Basic Instinct 2 will come to occupy similar cinematic ground as Exorcist 2 The Heretic, Beyond The Poseidon Adventure and XXX2. As a vanity project, it rivals Battlefield Earth in its misconception. As a multi-million dollar piece of Hollywood film-making, it's a travesty that will be hard to top as the years worst. | 0 |
train_15867 | The Haunting, if you have seen the original, you know a great ghost story, it's perfection on film. It's a haunting tale of 4 people who go into a haunted house and with the simple trick of sound and movements, it terrified people. It still remains effective to this day if you appreciate film. So when The Haunting was remade in 1999, a lot of people pretty much had the same reaction "WHAT? WHY? WHAT THE
" But in my opinion if a remake is respectful enough and just wants to reinvent the story for the newer generation, I'm pretty cool with it. This is definitely not the case, this is just a disrespectful boring shame that will waste your time and I guarantee will deliver no scares
pfft! PG-13, what where they thinking? Not much apparently.When her mother dies and her sister evicts her, Nell receives a phone call, telling her about an ad for an insomnia study run by Doctor David Marrow at Hill House, a secluded manor. Upon arrival, Nell meets Mr. and Mrs. Dudley, a strange pair of caretakers who do not stay on the property after dark. Shortly thereafter, two other participants in the study arrive, wild Theo and "bad sleeper" Luke Sanderson along with Doctor Marrow. Unknown to the participants, Doctor Marrow's true purpose is to study the psychological response to fear. Each night, the caretakers chain the gate outside Hill House, preventing anyone from getting in or out until morning, when the caretakers open the lock. There are no working telephones inside Hill House and the nearest town is several miles away. Doctor Marrow revels the story of Hill House. The house was built by Hugh Crain, Crain built the house for his wife, hoping to fill it with a large family full of children, however all of Crain's children died during birth. Crain's wife killed herself before the house was finished, and Crain became a recluse. The first night, Theo and Nell begin to experience strange phenomenon within the house, including odd noises and inexplicable temperature changes. Nell is confronted after the main hallway is vandalized with the words "Welcome Home, Eleanor", and becomes extremely distraught, setting out to prove that the house is haunted by the souls of those victimized by Crain's cruelty. She learns that Crain built his fortune by exploiting kidnapped children for slave labor and murdering them when they were of no more use to him. He then burned the bodies in the house's fireplace to hide any evidence. She also learns that Crain had a second wife named Carolyn, of whom Nell is descended. Everyone thinks she's crazy while Nell is convinced this is where she belongs.Seriously, I suggest you stay away from this film, it's really stupid and pointless. Not to mention the actress the played Nell, Lili Taylor completely annoyed me, her performance, her look, just everything about her, don't get me started on things I would do just to not see her in film again. Catherine Zeta Jones just didn't fit in her role as well and Liam Neeson, a wonderful actor wasted talent once again. The effects are way over the top and too computerized, I just can't believe that they would trash a wonderful classic with this crud. Believe me, if you are going to be afraid of something, be afraid of seeing how you can turn a great ghost story into an annoying piece of overblown stupid
. Oh, this film is already hurting me, just don't see it, it's bad.1/10 | 0 |
train_21370 | Stefan is an x-con that five years ago got married to Marie. Their marriage has been stable until Stefan past catch up with them and he's offered to do a courier job. Stefan's job is a heroin delivery from Germany to Sweden which should go easily.In Germany Stefan meet Elli, a girl from Bosnia that has been sold to a stripclub owner. Stefan dislikes what he sees and decide to help Elli out of her misery. Due to the fact that Elli's father during the war fleed to Sweden Elli now goes with Stefan to Sweden. To make up with the past Stefan promises Elli to help her find her father, no matter what it takes. Finally back in Sweden the whole situation seems to be more complicated than Stefan ever thought of..This movie doesn't seem to fit in the ordinary class of swedish movies due to the fact that it's been americanized alot. Regina Lund and Cecilia Bergqvist makes it all average, the effects makes the movie a little too much though. See it and jugde for yourself. | 0 |
train_455 | "Magic" isn't too strong a word for the spell this film weaves. You find yourself relaxing, and seeing others in a more benevolent light... Any movie that has that civilizing an effect on viewers deserves serious attention. Seldom are we soaked in beauty like this. As if that weren't enough, it's funny. Performances are, without exception, extraordinary, but special mention must be made of the miraculous Miranda Richardson, and the superb Josie Walker - both open like roses.Why ISN'T this film on DVD? It deserves to live forever. | 1 |
train_12726 | Andie McDowell is beautiful as the 40-ish woman whose late start at a serious relationship leads her to a considerably younger man and a subsequenet falling-out with 2 long-time best girldfriends.Seeing a gigolo/gold-digger in the sincere young man, the "girl-friends", dead-set on terminating this "silly relationship", go over and beyond the call of duty in "helping out" their friend (who obviously is blinded by this gigolo's tricky game".A short succession of situations is absolutely ridiculous. Far fetched no longer covers it. Without these unbelievable scenes, there may have been hope for a sweet love story. Instead, all the viewer is left with is an involuntary shaking of head -- these things just don't happen! Without giving away cliff-hanger details, I warn the viewer of having high expectations for this film; most (like me) will be very disappointed. On a scale of 1 to 10, this one ranks a weak 4 with me. There is much better material out there. This one isn't worth your time. | 0 |
train_4345 | It is no wonder this movie won 4 prices, it is a movie that lingers to any soul, it isn't a wonder why it took Paul Reiser 20 years to finally give in and talk to Peter Falk about his idea. I can understand every part of it, this is a movie that will make you cry just a tear, or thousands.Story: 10/10 When Sam kleinman gets a letter from his wife about her leaving him to find something else his son and him take out on a road trip to find her, and while they do that they find something lost, Friendship, family, and affection for each other. At the beginning you know whats going to happen, but none soever the story is not that easy to figure out from beginning to end, it is a ride between a father and his son, and a husband and his wife. It is no wonder it took Paul Reiser 20 years to write this beautiful romance/comedy.Actors: 10/10 Well you cant say anything else that what i about to say, hey it is with Peter Falk in it, he is a legend everything he does in movies are magic, when you use Peter Falk in a romance/comedy what do you think you get? A perfect outcome, it is no wonder this movie is that perfect and won that many prices. As the son Paul Reiser does an excellent job, although he isn't a great actor always that doesn't mean that this didn't work actually Peter Falk and Paul Reiser plays the perfect Father and Son, the rest of the cast is good enough but you don't see them as much so just say they do what they shall to get this to shine even more. Music: 10/10 It doesn't always work when using music sometimes it just doesn't fit but that is not the thing in this movie, the music is perfect in tune, it makes the movie even more compelling. This part of the movie will shine off as good as the other parts, a great soundtrack for a Romance/Comedy thats for sure.Overall: 10/10 There are so many Romance/Comedy movies out on tapes, DVDs, Blu-ray and what not, but this movie is one of the special ones. it doesn't happen everyday that you can create a story like this, it takes years thinking about this and the fact is that actually what it took to make it, a great piece that should be bought and kept into the human soul, see it when you get old and see it with your father at a old age, i think then this movie will spark like no other ever made. | 1 |
train_6288 | GONE IN 60 SECONDS / (2000) *** (out of four) "Gone in 60 Seconds" is an energetic, slick, stylish action picture with high octane star power and lots of awesome looking automobiles. If you are a viewer interested in cars this production, by producer Jerry Bruckheimer ("Con Air," "The Rock"), is worth seeing just to feast your eyes on the glossy vehicles. Although the film secretes a stench of weakness in many areas, its precise sense of action and excitement make it a moderately successful summer thrill ride. The film stars Giovanni Ribisi ("The Mod Squad") as a young crook named Kip Raines, who, as the movie opens, fails to deliver a long list of expensive cars to the powerful criminal Raymond Calitri (Christopher Eccleston). When Kip's life is threatened because of such, his older brother, Randall "Memphis" Raines (Nicolas Cage), a retired but skillful car thief, is called upon to complete a task in exchange for his brother's survival: steel fifty cars-specified by model, color, year, and make-in only four days. Memphis disburses the first three days recruiting a team of bandits to help him pull off the heist. The crew includes Sara "Sway" Wayland (Angelina Jolie), a sexy yet gruff retired car swindler knowing Memphis through previous business, a fellow named Mirror Man (T.J. Cross), the aging and wise Otto Halliwell (Robert DuVall), as well as Tumbler (Scott Caan), Atley Jackson (Will Patton), Toby (William Lee Scott), and Donny Astricky (Chi McBrde). Contributing to the film's drive and tension is a subplot involving two police detectives, Roland Castlebeck (Delroy Lindo) and Drycoff (Timothy Olyphant), who suspect from previous experience that Memphis and his crew are up to no good and keep an extra close eye on them.There is not much time for character development here; the audience gets to know these people though their rugged lifestyles and assume tough personalities through the films hard core, stylish atmosphere. To make matters even worse for the film, the dialogue fails to define the characters with a gritty cultural tone. I am not stating I think profanity and vulgarism is necessary for thrillers to flourish; I actually honor the director's decision to sustain from extreme foul language in a movie that could have very effortlessly earned an R-rating. However, I do believe in a movie such as "Gone in 60 Seconds," to strongly develop the character's enlightenment, dialogue needs to be believable and authentic. In spite of problems, the characters are effective due to the top notch, perfectly cast performers responsible. Nicolas Cage's melodramatic performance is intense and convincing. Angelina Jolie's sleazy appearance is completely appropriate here. Delroy Lindo is deliciously sturdy and believable. Giovanni Ribisi, Scott Caan, Robert Duvall, Will Patton, and Christopher Eccleston provide persuasive supporting roles. The film contains standard structure, with a satisfactory first act that elaborates on the story's style and the character's motives, sets up a fast-paced theme of action, but lacks depth and strong character introduction. In the second act we run into a few more problems: the story wastes time during much of this segment, never really building up for the third act. While the middle of the movie occupies much time, and a sex scene provides a solid mid-plot, not a whole lot happens. The third act is pretty much a sheer adrenaline rush containing furious wall-to-wall excitement and one of the most intense car chase sequences ever filmed. The soundtrack to "Gone in 60 Seconds" contributes a great deal to the inspirational action scenes. It is scenes like the car chases that makes this movie work in spite of several destructive faults. Dominic Sena, whose career has mostly consisted of directing commercials, has an appealing style and a decisive attitude in "Gone in 60 Seconds" which will grant audiences with two hours of commotion, thrills, and excitement
but not much more. | 1 |
train_2441 | I never fail to be amazed and horrified by the evil that has been predicated in the history of the world in the name of religion, and it seems that the machinations of the Catholic Church in Twentieth Century Ireland rank right up there near the top - considering that the wisdom of history and modern times should have had some sobering effect.A Love Divided is the story of a real family scarred by ignorant intolerance and prejudice all in the name of an inane Church doctrine. At the beginning of the film, we are offered a view of the bucolic life in a small Irish village in which Sheila and Sean Cloney are happily married with two young children. Sean is Catholic and Sheila is Protestant, but she has no qualms with their children being raised as Catholic. There is no sign of any animosity between the Catholics and Protestants in the village. The peaceful and loving relationships are soon shattered when Sheila expresses the desire to have their older child attend the Protestant school. The local priest takes it upon himself to forbid this "sin" and soon has Sheila's husband and the entire Catholic population of the village turned against her as well as her father, the local dairy farmer. In an act of defiance and desperation, Sheila kidnaps her two daughters and flees from the area.Special note should be given to Orla Brady who plays Sheila. She gives an extremely powerful performance in which the viewer is drawn in to the emotional trauma in which she decides to reject the wishes of a husband she deeply loves in order to express her fervent desire to establish herself as independent from the pressures of the establishment. On an equal footing is Liam Cunningham who plays Sean for he gives a realistic portrait of a man not nearly as complex as his wife who is torn between his love for her and the influence of Church and community.If fiction, this film would have been a compelling and interesting drama. Considering it is true, it changes to a horrific tragedy. In real life, the people and the village never fully recovered from the events that took place there. It took almost half a century for the Church to acknowledge its negative role in the events, and even though Sheila and Sean lived out their lives in the area, they never fully recovered from what was done to them by the religious leaders and their fellow villagers.Whether it be denying basic rights to education of choice, crashing planes into buildings, subjugating women, condemning whole races, or just plain on torture and murder, we humans certainly have the ability to use religion as a powerful negative force in our society. | 1 |
train_8444 | Following a roughly 7 year rocky road on NBC, it was decided to do just one last Super Installment. The Series had been on the bubble several times thanks to not having the numbers that would qualify it as a block-buster of a TV hour. It had always had a sizable, hard core of hard corps of followers. It was almost as if the series with the full title of "HOMICIDE: LIFE ON THE STREET" (1993-99) was a sort of "Mr. In-Between" of series. It was too big to just cancel, but too small to get a case of 'Rabid Ratings Ravings' over. During the precarious tenure on Friday evenings, they had presented some of the best and most daringly Artistic of Hourly Dramas. There, I've said it Artistic, Artistic!! But please, remember we mean Artistic, but not just Phony, Pretentious, Pedantic, Politically Correct preaching.When at last, it was a sure thing that it was the end of the line for "HOMICIDE"; this super episode was prepared as this 2 hour made for TV Movie. Looking at all the past seasons' happenings and parade of regular characters, the Production team went out and gave us what proved to be a super send off.OUR STORY
. As we join the story, we find that Baltimore Homicide Unit Commanding Officer, Lt. Al Giardello has "pulled the pin", Retired from the job, that is. But 'G' isn't ready to really retire-retire yet. So, instead of a rocking chair o a fishing rod, we find that Al is running for Mayor of 'Charm City.'While out in the City, making some campaign stops and speeches, the former Detective Lieutenant takes an assassin's bullet. Alive, but in a comatose state, he is taken to the Hospital. News spreads quickly and as if officially summoned, we find all of the Detectives of the Baltimore Unit we've seen on the show showing up to offer their services and assistance. There is a great meeting of all of these former and present gumshoes as they pitch in and follow every lead and possibility of a lead.The Producer found a way to deal with those who had died previously in bringing their memory into the story. They managed to answer some long standing questions and even introduced some here to unrevealed ones. The whole story winds up the series in a most satisfying and original way. But at least for now, we'll leave that as "classified".In wrapping up everything into a neat, little package, this TV Movie surely gets our endorsement. As for grading "THE HOMICIDE MOVIE", we must give it an A or A+, even. But, no matter the Grade here, it didn't score as high as a typical weekly episode. | 1 |
train_20753 | The movie had a cute opening, I truly believed I was in for one of the best romantic comedies i've seen in a while... there was something particular "foreign" about the way the movie was set up, realistic yet somewhat abstract and mystical. But then the story line started becoming more and more unrealistic. To say that the ending was CORNY and PREDICTABLE would almost be an understatement... The most typical romantic ending where everything goes great for every 'likable' character. A scene where the main character realises that he has made a mistake and chases the "woman of his dreams" only to confess his love for her in front of a sympathetic crowd of on- lookers. Come on. In the end, the 'good guys' win, 'bad guys' loose... You get the picture. A WASTE of a potentially interesting movie. | 0 |
train_12731 | This starts off bad, what with the three women acting like simpering junior high school wussies sitting around giggling with their gin, endless cigarettes and a caramel chocolate treat for the one who tells the best 'man' story, and then it gets worse -=- spoiler alert =-= what with Andie's character falling for the young organ player who used to be her student when he was 14 (she's the headmistress of an English school, believe it or not), only to have him destroyed thanks to her bitch-from-hell 'girlfriend' . ..and then from there, it's basically unwatchable claptrap: she forgives her 'friend' and has the organ player's love child and the 3 women end up as they started, drinking more gin and smoking more cigarettes blah blah blah. Andie's character throws the caramel chocolates out in the street, in a pathetic attempt to symbolize growth. Have mercy. | 0 |
train_13261 | Absolute garbage. The reason that this is so terrible is not because it deviated from the formula, but because the plot was just pathetic. The supposed star didn't do anything to solve the case - and neither did anyone else really - it was just routine police work. Utterly tedious.You sat right till the end hoping for a twist - and got nothing but a huge sense of disappointment. There was so much potential in having a relative in apparent kidnap. Could the Lt's personal involvement finally cloud his judgement? All the obvious signs were of a stranger doing it. But surely a genius like Lt C, by constant conversation with the wronged husband, would gradually uncover a fiendish plot involving a tape recorder playing in the shower room while a masked groom surprises the bride, hides the body and then plants subtle clues. It could have been good. It was a complete waste of time. | 0 |
train_13857 | *may contain a spoiler of sorts?* The mere mention of Crispin Glover is enough to send some geek's panties in a bunch. His landmark appearance in Back to the Future as George McFly has sealed him into the American conscience forever. More recently, he has been trying to get back into the culty subconscious with Bartleby and Willard.This time, however, Crispin has made a 76-minute, cheap dada film. At times it reminded me of genius, while overall it almost insulted me, but not because of its content. Content? What Is It? is a movie where, in one half of the movie, all of the actors have Down's Syndrome, giving it a freakshow feel to it. The other half of the movie includes Crispin Glover, Adam Parfrey, and a guy with cerebral palsy. This all had the feel of what John Waters was attempting to do with Desperate Living, and simultaneously feeling more successful and failing miserably.The half with the Down's Syndrome actors also features many many killed snails. It is about a guy who has snails, and ends up killing one. He is also tormented by a bunch of other people, and a grasshopper. He falls in love with 2 girls, one of which he has sex with in a graveyard. He also has a falling out with a friend who teases him.In a weird semi-interior set, Crispin Glover is the director of this show. He is something like the control of the guy's mind, and the cerebral palsy guy is something like the sexuality. Well, he at least gets masturbated in explicit scenes. There is other "shocking" imagery made humorous, like Nazi Swaztikas crossed with Shirley Temple, and minstrels in black face saying they're Michael Jackson.In the outside world, the tormentor is still dealing with his love of killing snails and being beaten by the other people. They beat him with rocks, and such. Later, they beat the minstrel after putting him on trial.Back to the interior, Crispin Glover is still the ruler of his set, and tries to control everybody, but fails miserably.What Is It? makes less sense than Dr. Caligari, and has more than a passing style stolen from it. The claustrophobic mental space feels very much like the way the no-wall sets of Dr. Caligari felt claustrophobic. They also had some dialogue that was absolute nonsense. And, it was all wrapped up with absurdist imagery for humor.The problem is, about 20 minutes into the movie...maybe a little more...What Is It? runs out of imagery. For the next 56 minutes, we keep running on the same sets of images, only introducing new imagery in the form of an absurdist puppet show. The movie seems little more than a movie which attempts to push the envelope in offensive and taboo imagery. It tries to mock and confuse the audience. But, the issue is that it only has enough different imagery for a 40 minute movie.Even worse than that, the cinematography, set design, and everything else felt very very cheap and almost unplanned. It felt like "OK, this is the way we can do it and get it out of the way." It didn't feel interesting, and was quite...boring. Dr. Caligari, on the other hand, had amazing cinematography and framing. The difference between the two is quite astounding.rating: C | 0 |
train_3323 | I got this film about a month ago and I am now a fanatic fan of Drew Barrymore's. I love a happy ending and this film gives a brilliant one with the truths of Red Sox slotted in! It's about a maths teacher who takes some promising kids on a maths trip to a company where the successful Lindsey(Drew) shows them some information. This then leads in the Ben(teacher) and Lindsey dating. But it isn't all simple when he confesses he is a massive Red Sox fan. First of all things are fine but then his baseball gets in the way of Lindseys life. It's all fine in the end and It took one shot to get Drew running across the field!! I got it for two quid in Blockbusters so I was happy. If you like films like this I suggest you see some more of Drew's work like Charlie's Angels and 50 first dates or even her new film with Hugh Grant in called Music and Lyrics. | 1 |
train_23559 | "Dahmer" is an interesting film although I wouldn't use "horror" or "thriller" do describe it. It's more a minor character study that seems oddly sympathetic of the killer.Jeremy Renner portrays serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, who drugged, murdered and dismembered his male victims. The film centers on the relationship between Dahmer and "Rodney", well-played by Artel Kayàru. Rodney is almost the more interesting character: enamored of Dahmer and having once escaped an attack, he returns to Dahmer for sex and survives a second attack.I think the film is disjointed because it does little to portray Dahmer's formative years, how events may have created the human monster we see on screen and offers no insight into Dahmer's belief that he could create sexual zombies of his victims.The roles are well played but the story is thin. | 0 |
train_22301 | I remember this show being on the television when I was a kid back in the early 1990s, and there was this rage about kids with goofy leotards doing kung fu on one another and riding around in plastic dinosaurs. It was called power rangers. I remember that little kids would go around hitting each other and then the shirts and the stuff from the show was banned in many school districts all over the country because this show taught kids how to fight each other in solving their differences.I never really thought of this as a show, especially when better shows like The Tick were playing on Fox Kids. Most older teens always looked at power rangers in a ridiculous and scornful manner, and it's not hard to wonder why. The footage is ridiculous at best. The colored rangers costumes look like stuff you would work out in and the dinosaurs look like plastic nonsense. Then you get into the acting, and of course those really laughable haircuts. All the guys run around with earrings on, half of them are wearing 90's mullets, and they always wear the same clothes everyday, and then change into leotard wearing power rangers.The toys are especially ridiculous as well, and was the joke of many late night talk show hosts. And of course two of the worst movies ever made, and I do mean two of the worst movies ever made were based on this show with nearly every critic trashing both the films, and the shows it was based on.Power rangers is nothing more than a bad television commericial for especially bad toy merchandising. As an adult, I don't look at it fondly, but rather as another embarrassment of 1990s kids shows, fashion and guys' earrings. | 0 |
train_2367 | I could not take my eyes off this movie when it showed up on cable. The dialogue and costumes are of a quality most readily associated with soft-core porn. In this case the expedient plot serves as a vehicle not for sex but for serial thrashings with nunchuks. (Perhaps for sex as well, but not on Indian TV, anyway.)Not being a fan of the genre I couldn't place Jeff Wincott, and had no leads to search from. Only once Brigitte Nielsen traded in her futuristic-nurse coif (so mayoral!) for the high-top fade we remember from Beverly Hills Cop II did I make the positive ID on her.This movie will no doubt entertain any admirer of early 90's couture or nod-and-wink schlock à la Paul Verhoeven. Can we add a genre tag for "so-bad-it's-good"? | 1 |
train_24091 | This film is so incredibly bad, that I almost felt sick watching it. Up until this point, the other installments had at least one good thing about it. Part 1 was suspenseful and gory. Part 2 was off beat and entertaining. Part 3 was interesting with great effects. Part 4 had great music, good special effects, and a new entertaining Freddy Krueger. Part 5 is more boring than anything I've ever seen before. Alice, a much prettier blond, from Part 4 is back with her boyfriend Dan. At parts, this supposed Elm Street installment turns into a daytime soap. The newer characters seem harsh, and even that sweet Alice has a chip on her shoulder. Freddy seems to be completely out of this one. He looks tired, and doesn't seem to be as gruesome. His one-liners seem out of place and different, where as in Part 4 they could be pretty funny. Leslie Bohem's story never gets off the ground and Stephen Hopkins' direction is so bad, that it makes my grandmother look good! The whole plot of this movie is ridiculous and unrealistic. It's also confusing and pretty stupid. Avoid Part 5 at all costs! | 0 |
train_15387 | I just watched this movie today and not only is it, terrible and awful but it looks like the director just got a few friends together to make a movie about a sick man. I also think that this movie has the look of a porn video with it's clear crisp just filmed view.Thank heavens I work in a video store and I didn't have to pay for it cause this movie is crap x infinity..DO NOT BUY OR RENT THIS MOVIE!!!!! You'd have a better time watching Dude Where's My Car than this piece of crap! And that's not saying a lot for that movie either.The acting is lousy and the movie is just very unwatchable. I was watching this movie and I wanted to kill myself during and after the movie.I walked home and threw up after watching this piece of dirt movie, I then took a shower and burnt my clothes. If I had half a mind I would of took the movie outside and burned it too cause no one should be subjected to it...well maybe members of Al Queda..especially the ones we have in custody and also child rapists who are in prison on life sentences with out parole....just make a set up like a clock work Orange, And then force these cheese head to watch it over and over again. | 0 |
train_7870 | The movie is a real show of how unemotional and selfish the upper society has become. It has plenty of characters and each and every character is representing a different category of person. No character is 100% good and moral unlike the heroes of all the typical Indian movies and no character is 100% bad rather all are just different. The movie is a very perfect mixture of emotions, drama and entertainment. For the very first time i liked a movie that has raised some social questions. I would recommend all to see the movie. Madhavi Sharma is a journalist who covers those hip-shaking parties of Bollywood for the Page 3 of the newspaper but this is the story of how she becomes a crime reporter for the newspaper. But this is not all, then it shows how she couldn't survive there and when she helped rescue some innocent children, how brutally her voice is suppressed. Even she is fired from the job. Then she couldn't find a job of crime reporter and has to do Page 3 again. Not only her but a very very large number of characters are interwoven in the movie and all gives different feeling while watching the movie. I would really congratulate the director for making such a great movie. Please do not afford to miss it. | 1 |
train_24769 | The Japenese sense of pacing, editing and musical score must be different than American tastes, but surely this movie could have been so much more with a little more post production work.Someone in Hollywood needs to re-make this movie and I think it would be a big hit. The story is interesting and creepy. There's something about the edges of the city, gritty policemen, earthquakes, sanitariums and mysterious saltwater killings that is enough to be captivating. However, this story has to make just a little bit of sense and maybe be about 40 minutes shorter.I do have to say that the "sixth-sense" effect was in full force in this movie, and that was evident from the very beginning.As it stands, only the die-hard Japanese film lovers should bother seeing this oh-so-boring movie. | 0 |
train_10714 | The Scots excel at storytelling. The traditional sort. Many years after the event, I can still see in my mind's eye an elderly lady, my friend's mother, retelling the Battle of Culloden. She makes the characters come alive. Her passion is that of an eye-witness. One to the events on the sodden heath a mile or so from where she lives.Of course, it happened many years before she was born, but you wouldn't guess from the way she tells it. The same story is told in bars the length and breadth of Scotland. As I discussed it with a friend one night in Mallaig, a local cut in to give his version. The discussion continued to closing time.Stories passed down like this become part of our being. Who doesn't remember the stories our parents told us when we were children? They become our invisible world. And, as we grow older, they maybe still serve as inspiration or as an emotional reservoir. Fact and fiction blend with aspiration, role models. Warning stories. Archetypes. Magic and mystery."My name is Aonghas, like my grandfather and his grandfather before him." Our protagonist introduces himself to us. And also introduces the story that stretches back through generations. It produces stories within stories. Stories that evoke the impenetrable wonder of Scotland, its rugged mountains shrouded in mists. The stuff of legend. Yet Seach'd is rooted in reality. This is what gives it its special charm. It has a rough beauty and authenticity, tempered with some of the finest Gaelic singing you will ever hear.Aonghas (Angus) visits his grandfather in hospital shortly before his death. He burns with frustration. Part of him yearns to be in the twenty-first century, to hang out in Glasgow. But he is raised on the Western shores among a Gaelic-speaking community.Yet there is a deeper conflict within him. He yearns to know the truth. The truth behind his grandfather's ancient stories. Where does fiction end? And he wants to know the truth behind the death of his parents.He is pulled to make a last fateful journey, to the summit of one of Scotland's most inaccessible mountains. Can the truth be told? Or is it all in stories?In this story about stories, we revisit bloody battles, poisoned lovers, the folklore of old and the sometimes more treacherous folklore of accepted truth. In doing so, we each connect with Angus, as he lives the story of his own life.Seachd: The Inaccessible Pinnacle is probably the most honest, unpretentious and genuinely beautiful film of Scotland ever made. Like Angus, I got slightly annoyed with the pretext of hanging stories on more stories. But, also like Angus, I forgave this once I saw the 'bigger picture.' Forget the box-office pastiche of Braveheart and its like. You might even forego the justly famous dramatisation of The Wicker Man. To see a film that is true to Scotland, this one is probably unique. If you maybe meditate on it deeply enough, you might even re-evaluate the power of storytelling, and the age-old question of whether there are some truths that cannot be told but only experienced. | 1 |
train_18048 | Though the title includes the word "zombies", this film is not what you'd expect from a movie made today, though for 1936 the concept is played out about as well as would probably be expected. Dean Jagger portrays Armand Louque, an officer in the French Army of World War I, who has stumbled upon an ancient tale of soldiers turned into automatons, or "zombies", who are impervious in battle and may hold the key to victory in the war, though on whose side is not certain. At first he has trouble convincing his superiors of this phenomenon, but eventually French General Duval (George Cleveland) orders a non military expedition into the ancient Cambodian city of Angkor to find the secret of the zombies and destroy it.The story is played out against the backdrop of a love triangle involving Louque, Duval's daughter Claire (Dorothy Stone), and Clifford Grayson (Robert Noland), all a part of the expedition. When Louque laments over his lack of forcefulness and resolve, Grayson offers him advice to go after what he wants in life with all his power. That advice begins to transform Louque, particularly after he's successful in obtaining a stone tablet resembling a photo from the ancient city. Having followed a temple priest into a swamp, Louque now appears to hold the secret he had been seeking, though it's not made clear how he has instantaneously been able to command the power of "zombiefication". All it takes is placing his right fist to the forehead simulating a third eye, and casting his thoughts out to those he wishes to control. This comes in handy for winning back his girl, and taking Grayson's early advice as he comments to his servant, "Buna, we're learning to be ruthless".Fans of early "B" horror flicks will recognize the use of Bela Lugosi's signature eye stare, plucked from the 1932 film "White Zombie", also from director Victor Halperin. Of the two movies, "White Zombie" is preferably superior, both in story content and in it's depiction of the undead, where the zombies have a more sinister appearance and are more threatening. In "Revolt", the zombies are enemy soldiers with a glazed over look that merely react to their mentor's commands. In fact, the actual revolt of the title occurs only when Louque releases the soldiers from his mental command in deference to his love for Claire; they overrun his compound and kill him in the process.Not to be too harsh on the film, it plays out decently within the parameters of it's story outline, but if you're thinking "zombies!!!" within the traditional context, you'll probably be disappointed. If you want to sample an early treatment of the subject, the aforementioned "White Zombie" with Bela Lugosi is the way to go. | 0 |
train_21776 | This is a truly wretched little film. Admittedly the original (un)holy trinity was governed by the law of diminishing returns with the third, "The Final Conflict" degenerating into a ridiculous sub-plot about half-way through the film apparently merely to provide the requisite needlessly convoluted deaths that had by now become the whole raison d'etre for the "Omen" series. But then to foist this jumped-up TV movie (beware purchasers of the Omen box set on DVD - don't be fooled by the widescreen ratio of the transfer, this was and is strictly small-screen stuff) on the back of a series of generally fine demonic chillers was unforgivable, particularly, endorsed as it was, by the exec.producer and producer of the first three movies Mace Neufeld and Harvey Bernhard. I'd give-away the plot if there was any, besides the usual death scenes (hopelessly toned down for TV sensibilities) and some of the worst acting I've seen. All involved in this project down to the catering people should be ashamed this travesty ever made it to the screen, let alone masquerading under the Omen name. If one person is convinced by my review to avoid this mess, I'll feel better for it. | 0 |
train_21813 | This was by far the worst low budget horror movie i have ever seen. I am an open minded guy and i always love a good horror movie. In fact, when I'm renting movies i specifically look for some good underrated horror movies. They are always good for a laugh, believe i know, i have seen many. But this movie was just so terrible it wasn't worth a chuckle. I was considering turning it off in the first five minutes... which i probably should have. There is nothing good about it, first and foremost, the camera crew suck3d A$$. The intro was stupid just like the ending. Acting and special effects were terrible. Please I'm begging you, do NOT watch this movie, you will absolutely hate it. | 0 |
train_21485 | Previous comments encouraged me to check this out when it showed up on TCM, but it was a severe disappointment. Lupe Valdez is great, but doesn't get enough screen time. Frank Morgan and Eugene Palette play familiar but promising characters, but the script leaves them stranded.The movie revolves around the ego of Lee Tracy's character, who is at best a self-centered, physically and verbally abusive jerk. The reactions of "the public" are poorly thought-out and unbelievable, making the "shenanigans" seem like contrivances of a bad writer. And it strains credulity that the Lupe Velez character could fall for him.The "stinging one-liners" mentioned in another review must be dependent on the observer, since I didn't even notice that an attempt was being made. | 0 |
train_10319 | Having read many of the other reviews for this film on the IMDb there is ostensibly a consensus amongst purists that this film is nothing like the books upon which it is based. Upon this point I cannot comment, having never actually read any of the protagonists adventures previously. However, what I can say with certainty, is that it strikes me that many of the said reviewers must have surely undergone a sense of humour bypass; Let's be honest here - this film is just so much fun!OK
..so I must concede the point that the film apparently is not representative of the character/s but let's put this into a clear perspective
..do the same individuals who are carping on about this film also bemoan the fact that the classic 1960's Batman series does not remain faithful to the original DC comic book character? Or perhaps is there STILL unrest in same persons that the 1980 film version of Flash Gordon was too much of a departure from the original series?The point is, yes this film is incredibly camp but that's precisely its charm!Former Tarzan, Ron Ely plays the eponymous hero in this (and bears more than a passing resemblance to Gary Busey to boot!) and is backed up by a great supporting cast who all look to be having a ball with their respective roles. Also look out for a very brief but highly welcome appearance by horror movie favourite Michael Berryman.Best scene? Far too many to choose from but check out the hilarious facial expressions adopted by the waiter when Savage and his men commit the ultimate faux pas of ordering coke, lemonade and milk at a formal occasion! Also the often noted scene near the end of the film wherein Savage tackles his nemesis Captain Seas utilising various martial arts disciplines which are labelled on screen! Priceless!Simply put, the film doesn't take itself at all seriously and is all the more fun for it. Great fun from start to finish! (and you'll be singing the John Phillip Sousa adapted theme song for days afterwards guaranteed!) | 1 |
train_4531 | This is a cleaver film featuring love through the ages. The film consists of Keaton seeking out a lady love in the stone age, in ancient Rome and in the present (1920s). In all three cases, he is the usual wimpy Buster and he battles against Wallace Beery for his lady love. Of the three time periods, I think I liked the Roman one best even though I admit it might have also been the cheesiest. I actually liked the scenes with the lion that was obviously a guy in a costume as well as the weird chariot race in the snow--but what I really enjoyed the most was seeing all of Keaton's amazing acrobatics. However, all three time periods were good old fashioned fun and the film, while not his best, is still an exceptional and enjoyable film. Check it out! | 1 |
train_24636 | I saw this movie on t.v. this afternoon and I can't see how anyone can sit through this piece of trash. It's not funny at all and it takes your I.Q. down a few notches. I know this movie is for kids, but that doesn't mean the writers should take their intelligence for granted. I bet that writers were sitting around a large wooden table and figured that a) The word "poop" equals big laugh. b) A four foot tall kid can dunk on a ten foot tall basketball net. c) Kids should always fight kidnappers armed with guns because the kidnappers will fall for anything and d) 3 months of karate training is all you need to beat up so-called "ninjas" with swords. One good thing I can say about this movie is it contains the weakest suburban "gang" in the world that couldn't scare anybody. Maybe the guys at MST3K could use this movie for a good laugh. Don't bother with this lame-ass excuse for a movie. | 0 |
train_18225 | 2005 gave us the very decent "gore porn" flick Hostel, and 2006 gave us Live Feed; a not so decent rip-off of Hostel. Live Feed follows pretty much the same formula as Eli Roth's earlier film, except this time the dumb kids are in Asia rather than central Europe. The plot focuses on these dumb kids, and one of them has annoyed one of the locals so they find themselves in trouble. The locals decide to lock them all in a theatre, and kill them. Despite the fact that I'd heard some less than favourable things about this film before seeing it, I still hoped that it might be at least half decent because director Ryan Nicholson previously made the very decent 45 minute rape and revenge film 'Torched', but this film falls down simply because most of it is either ridiculous or boring. The film is obviously trying to hark back to the good old days of Grindhouse cinema (which Hostel did, successfully), but it really doesn't come off. Surprisingly, considering Nicholson's previous work in special effects - not even the gore is impressive...although it is a lot better than the acting! There's not much else I can say about this film...it's bad and not in a good way. Avoid it! | 0 |
train_16229 | First of all, I saw this movie when I was 7 years old at a Christian Scholl I attended. Needless to say that I was scared out of mind. Not because it was scary but because the content.Cmon...I was 7. Anyway, the cinematography was pretty bad and the acting was cheesy. That's very bad considering that I was only 7 and I remember that. The one thing that still haunts me is that dreadful song "I wish we all were ready" where the chorus ends with "...you were left behind". I wouldn't suggest seeing this one. I probably will, just for nostalgic reason. Besides, I'm sure the remake is much better. The best part of this movie though, has to be when everyone "dissapears"; vacant cars crashing, lawnmowers running on their own...pretty hilarious. | 0 |
train_14671 | This movie surely has one of the strangest themes in history -- right up there with Ed Wood's impassioned defense of cross-dressing in "Glen or Glenda?"The subject: playing bridge. The Park Avenue set plays it; the Bohemians play it. The Russians -- who speak very questionable "Russian" and have most unconvincing accents when they speak English -- play it at the restaurant where they work.If one isn't interested in bridge, one -- even despite the great cast -- isn't likely to be much interested in this bizarre movie.Loretta Young and Paul Lukas are fine. (Well --Frank McHugh is an unlikely ghost writer -- as Lukas is an unlikely Russian.) But they are all sunk by the fetishistic script. | 0 |
train_22260 | The filming crew did not have good access to the occupied territories, so filming of the Israeli side dominated. I was struck by the nearly completely opposite points of view of the mothers. The Israeli mother lost a child who had the possibility of a life of tremendous happiness. The Palestinian mother lost a child who had only the possibility of a life of privation and despair. With such completely different viewpoints, any meeting had no real chance of any meeting of the minds. The word "peace" did not have the same meaning to each of them. Peace to the Palestinian was freedom. Peace to the Israeli was security. With such an abyss, is this sort of film really worth much? I finished with the feeling that I had watched pointless propaganda -- both sides were unconvincing. | 0 |
train_20548 | Suppose you've been on a deserted island the last ten years. Haven't heard of Scream and left when Halloween part 1 entered the cinema. Then this movie would have been a blast and a completely new vision on the horror scene.At the moment, a 2.7 rating is on IMDb and it doesn't deserve a that low appreciation. Slashing all the way, like "I know what you did", and a who-is-it that when getting to the end convinced me of that who-and-why.No big surprise, just a nice flick to watch with a cola, popcorn and no urge to get a difficult plot, deep characters. If the video rental is out of the top titles, you can take it without a risk, but don't expect a masterwork. I've seen a lot worse. | 0 |
train_23852 | this is what you would get if you allowed a 10 year old (manic American) to write a story of a moon trip. Absolute garbage with no redeeming qualities Maybe it held some fascination in the 3D dept. but as a narrative and entertaining animation it held nothing to make wasting an hour and a half worth while. Save your time and money and watch BOLT insteadDamn. Not enough lines, yet I feel that sums it up... well, I agree with an above review - this is like a cold-war propaganda story. Maybe it would have been more interesting if they had made it about the flies uncovering the hoax of the moon landing, or if the flies had died in the first minute. BTW - why were all the main character flies deformed? - not one had the full compliment of limbs! | 0 |
train_12373 | Time has not been kind to this movie. Once controversial adaptation of Jeffrey Konvitz' best-seller, now this film looks like a mere mainstream version of your typical spookfest. Gruesome touches aside (particularly that crazy, over the top finale), this is essentially a glossy horror movie for those people that do not care much for the genre. It has an extraordinary cast in small roles (Jose Ferrer, Ava Gardner, Eli Wallach, Burgess Meredith, Christopher Walken, and many others), but something tells me that the producers wanted such an expensive cast in order to convince the audience that this is not your average lowbrow movie (producers of '70s disaster movies had a similar idea). I kind liked to see the familiar faces, but the story is very silly, and no matter how high class the film pretends to be, it operates at the level of your average '70s exploitation movie (not an entirely bad thing, though). Still, it is an enjoyable movie, especially for those viewers who enjoy stargazing. As usual, Albert Whitlock's matte work is outstanding. Overall, pretty entertaining. | 1 |
train_6234 | This is my all-time favorite Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers film. The dialogue between the two is so cute and funny and very clever. Not to mention this film contains some of the best songs recorded by the two; like I'm Putting All My Eggs in One Basket and Let's Face the Music and Dance. If I remember correctly, this was the film that introduced me to Fred Astaire so I suppose because of that it will always hold a special place in my heart (sorry for the sentimental cr*p but I'm woman so get over it)All in all this film gets an 8/10 from me. The choreography was superb and also the fact that Lucille Ball is in it makes it even more awesome. | 1 |
train_1996 | Simply put, Oliver! is one of the greatest musicals of all time. It is filled with memorable songs - "Food Glorious Food", "Oliver!", "Consider Yourself" and "Oom-Pah-Pah" to name just a few - and equally memorable characters.The film is a musical adaptation of Charles Dickens' classic novel and much like the story of Oliver Twist itself, it is a perfect family film. There are some frightening moments - the villain Bill Sykes played by Oliver Reed is scary enough on his own - but overall, the film will appeal to children of all ages as well as adults.The story - which almost everyone is surely familiar with by now - revolves around a little orphan boy named Oliver and his life growing up in London. At first he lives in the workhouse with the rest of his fellow orphans but after daring to question Mr. Bumble, the overseer, he is sold to a family as a servant.After a series of mishaps and close shaves, he meets the Artful Dodger - superbly played by a young Jack Wild, who gives his all in the role - and through him, the greedy Fagin (Ron Moody), who trains young boys to pick pocket treasures which he keeps for himself.The film was shot solely in studios and on soundstages at Shepperton Film Studios but this does not translate at all to film. The sets perfectly replicate Victorian London, as do the costumes worn by the characters. A multi-Oscar winner and a massive success on its release, Oliver! is a worthy contender for the best musical all of time and will delight anyone who loves film. | 1 |
train_10095 | My parents took me to this movie when I was nine years old. I have never forgotten it. I had never before seen anything as beautiful as Elizabeth Taylor. (She was twenty-two when she made Elephant Walk) Remember, I'm nine, so the feelings aren't sexual, I just couldn't see anything else on the screen. I just wanted to sit at her feet like a puppy and stare up at her. She has begun to show her age, (She's almost seventy-four) but I still believe her to be one of the most beautiful and breathtaking women to ever have lived.I have seen the movie several times since, and it is a sappy melodrama. What saves it is, of course, Miss Taylor's beauty, magnificent scenery, the very impressive elephant stampede, and a well-made point on human arrogance in the face of nature.All in all, a well-spent couple of hours watching the movie channel or a rented video. | 1 |
train_3919 | While rehearing Carmen of Bizet, the middle-aged choreographer Antonio (Antonio Gades) brings the sexy Carmen (Laura del Sol) to perform the lead role. Antonio falls in love for Carmen, who is an independent and seductive woman incapable to accept a possessive love. When Carmen has an affair with another dancer, Antonio is consumed by his jealousy like D. José in the original opera, entwining fiction with reality."Carmen" is another great movie of Carlos Saura's trilogy dedicated to the Flamenco dance. The dramatic love story is developed with the lives of the artists entwined with the characters they are rehearsing, and many times is not absolutely clear whether what is happening is reality (with the dancers) or fiction (of the play). Paco de Lucia is another attraction of this original version of the famous Bizet's opera, which is based on the novel of Prosper Mérimée. My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): "Carmen" | 1 |
train_14323 | Jack Black's character, Tim Dingman the "Dreamer" in Envy, finds wealth and success in the idea of a aerosol spray "Vapoorize" that when sprayed on doggie dung, makes the poo disappear into thin air. For a moment I was hoping that Vapoorize was a real product so that I could spray it on this "stinker" of a movie and make it disappear into thin air as well.Although Envy is not the worst movie that I have seen in the past 12 months (that honor goes to The Cat in the Hat), it does get the honor of a close second.Not funny, not sad, not anything. A real "Stinkeroo"!!!!!A 0.2 out of 10!! | 0 |
train_21830 | Saw this movie recently and had higher hopes. Not so much based upon the director, who hadn't made a cinematographic release before, but more based upon its cast. Harvey Keitel, Scott Glenn and Craig Wasson (lead role in Body double, a Brian De Palma masterpiece) have all starred in great movies. Not together though, and this fact hasn't exactly changed because of this one.The film is unbelievable, very predictable and cliché. The only thing that might make it slightly appealing is the selection of locations on which it's been shot. In my humble opinion: don't waste your time on this one. | 0 |
train_10404 | Despite having 6 different directors, this fantasy hangs together remarkably well.It was filmed in England (nowhere near Morocco) in studios and on a few beaches. At the outbreak of war, everything was moved to America and some scenes were filmed in the Grand Canyon.Notable for having one of the corniest lyrics in a song - "I want to be a bandit, can't you understand it". It remains a favourite of many people. | 1 |
train_6188 | A Murder investigation goes on back stage while The Vanities, on its opening night, plays on to an unknowing audience. Odd combination of musical and murder mystery is worth a look for its cast, its production numbers, and the sheer novelty of the film.Gertrude Michael has the showy role of a bitchy actress intent on stopping the marriage between the show's stars, Kitty Carlisle and Carl Brisson, as well as starring in the infamous "Sweet Marijuana" number (which was also on a 70s Bette Midler album). So while the chorus girls shuffle around backstage, bumbling detective Victor McLaglen ogles the girls while he tries to solve the backstage murder of an unknown woman.We quickly learn that the maid (Dorothy Stickney) loves Brisson from afar, that the wardrobe lady (Jessie Ralph) is Brisson's mother, and that the stage manager (Jack Oakie) butts into everything. Lots of plots twists among the musical numbers. The show's best-known song is "Cocktails for Two." Kitty Carlisle also sings the haunting "Where Do They Come From?" And there's a weird rhapsody that erupts into a Harlem specialty number featuring Duke Ellington! Quite the cast.Some terrific acting here, especially Gertrude Michael and Dorothy Stickney. Kitty Carlisle is quite good as well. Brisson is a total zero though.Charles Middleton plays Homer, Toby Wing plays Nancy, Donald Meek plays the doctor, and also see if you can spot Ann Sheridan and Lucille Ball among the show girls. | 1 |
train_7004 | Will Smith is one of the best actors of all time. I don't know how he does it. I read books constantly but if there is a movie with Will Smith I will watch it. He has a rare gift of pulling you into the movie and holding you there. This movie is one of the best movies I have seen yet. I watched it on Saturday and I still cannot get it out of my head. AMAZING and sad all at the same time. Thanks again Will. You must watch this movie from beginning to end to understand every part of the movie. You cannot miss a thing. Make sure you have plenty of Kleenex and your man/woman sitting next to you so you can cuddle. WELL Worth the money that you will pay to watch it.. don't wait for it to come on TV. | 1 |
train_24964 | This movie, supposedly a thriller, had about five sub-plots that developed simultaneously to climax at the end, but it ended up more as a yawn.The writing was trite, the pace was slow and disjointed and the characters were boring. George Clooney looks like he needs to get into a gym, Matt Damon hammed it up and the others seemed to read their lines from a teleprompter.The worst part of this movie was that it was carefully crafted to be politically correct and so it ended up saying nothing at all about big business, oil and the Middle-East. I have seen documentaries provide more excitement. Watch it only if there's absolutely nothing else to do. | 0 |
train_20631 | Unless the title is supposed to be some kind of spoiler for the wife's transformation (the fiends! ruining it for us). Anycase, if this movie wasn't Made-For-TV, it should have been, it's so remarkably low-budget, underscripted, underacted, and hits every 70's cliche except disco. Nobody is likeable, and you could careless what happens to anyone in this one. Eminently forgetable except for the bad, bad performances. | 0 |
train_18908 | The films of UPA are surprisingly well rated on IMDb despite the fact that the animation quality is light-years behind that of Looney Toons, Disney and MGM at their prime. Sadly, due to rising costs in making pretty cartoons with high frame-rates and lovely backgrounds, the UPA style (which debuted about 1950) began to dominate in the late 50s and 60s. After all, the films were dirt cheap to make and they'd received several Oscars to "prove" that the cartoons were now mainstream. So as a result, lousy animation was becoming the norm and this trend wasn't reversed until the 1980s.This UPA film is one of the early ones. The characters are very simply drawn (any simpler and they would have used stick figures) and the backgrounds were ugly--simple line drawings with colors added in a very slap-dash manner (often with a sponge and rarely completely filling the items).As for the story, it's a jive story with a strong jazz style attitude. Some will love this, others will just find it very, very loud. It's the traditional "Frankie and Johnny" story and because of the shootings and all, it's probably not a great film for the kids. Heck, because of the animation and jazz, it's not a particularly good film for me, either! Some will read my review and no doubt think I am a crank (which I am, to a degree). However, I love animated films and a little of this minimalistic UPA style goes a very, very long way and you can't seriously consider them great works of art--just very, very quickly made cartoons. Ignore the Oscars and try watching some classic cartoons or something--anything else! | 0 |
train_18385 | to make up a movie-going audience - I'm certainly stunned by the number of positive comments this wretched film has garnered here. I can't credit it, can't help but be suspicious, for that matter, of back alley payoffs to critics who are touting Annette Bening for an Oscar; the hole in the kitchen ceiling might be more appropriately attributed to her scenery chewing. She's a wonderful actress but this is an unfortunately unbalanced performance, lacking that essential quality film actors must master of catching the cadence of the screenplay and maintaining it for the duration of the disjointed madness that is a film shoot.I don't really want to blame Miss Bening or most of the other performers (well, Gwyneth Paltrow has no excuse for her muzzy work), however, because this is a horrendous adaptation, a classic case of mistranslation (I am prepared to assume. I haven't read the book and don't think I will after this). The script launches us into the middle/muddle of unaccountable behaviour and extreme emotional angst spewing from mystifying characters who have developed relationships neither with us nor each other. It quickly becomes a grotesquely excessive tsunami-like assault that sullies characters and audience alike and left me like a survivor shaking my head at the detritus left at the end of each repetitive episode. Shock and awe would describe my reaction to frantic, bi-polar mood swings between ranting and oh-so-quiet sensitivity, the latter telegraphed by one of the most irritating, manipulative, droning soundtracks I've heard - that is, when all this isn't being set to ludicrously incongruous toons - period stuff, ya know, but chosen with an astounding disregard for the tone of the scenes.How this fine cast got mixed up in this I don't know - I can't believe they saw the screenplay before signing. They certainly apply their skills with commitment - I felt so sorry for the wonderful Jill Clayburgh saddled with a cartoon bag lady costume and wig trying vainly to wrench something of significance from sketchy and clichéd dialogue. In contrast, somehow, Alec Baldwin rises above the material to deliver a consistent, nuanced, real performance. Can somebody give this man a lead role of substance, please? And how about Rachel Evan Wood - or Joseph Fiennes? You'd think the industry could make better use of him, and without appearing as hirsute as Elliot Gould in M.A.S.H. My vote? A standup turd, all right, but no link with heaven. | 0 |
train_4076 | By now you've probably heard a bit about the new Disney dub of Miyazaki's classic film, Laputa: Castle In The Sky. During late summer of 1998, Disney released "Kiki's Delivery Service" on video which included a preview of the Laputa dub saying it was due out in "1999". It's obviously way past that year now, but the dub has been finally completed. And it's not "Laputa: Castle In The Sky", just "Castle In The Sky" for the dub, since Laputa is not such a nice word in Spanish (even though they use the word Laputa many times throughout the dub). You've also probably heard that world renowned composer, Joe Hisaishi, who scored the movie originally, went back to rescore the excellent music with new arrangements. Laputa came out before My Neighbor Totoro and after Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind, which began Studio Ghibli and it's long string of hits. And in my opinion, I think it's one of Miyazaki's best films with a powerful lesson tuckered inside this two hour and four minute gem. Laputa: Castle in the Sky is a film for all ages and I urge everyone to see it.For those unfamiliar with Castle in the Sky's story, it begins right at the start and doesn't stop for the next two hours. The storytelling is so flawless and masterfully crafted, you see Miyazaki's true vision. And believe me, it's one fantastic one. The film begins with Sheeta, a girl with one helluva past as she is being held captive by the government on an airship. Sheeta holds the key to Laputa, the castle in the sky and a long lost civilization. The key to Laputa is a sacred pendant she has which is sought by many, namely the government, the military and the air pirate group, the Dola gang (who Sheeta and Pazu later befriend). Soon, the pirates attack the ship and she escapes during the raid. She falls a few thousand feet, but the fall is soft and thanks to her pendant. As she floats down from the sky, Pazu, an orphan boy who survives by working in the mines, sees Sheeta and catches her. The two become fast friends, but thanks to her pendant, the two get caught up in one huge thrill ride as the Dola gang and government try to capture Sheeta. One action sequence after another, we learn all of the character's motives and identities as we build to the emotional and action packed climax which will surely please all with it's fantastic animation and wonderful dialogue. Plus somewhat twisty surprise. I think this film is simply remarkable and does hold for the two hour and four minute run time. The story is wonderful, as we peak into Hayao Miyazaki's animation which has no limits. The setting of the film is a combo of many time periods. It does seem to take place at the end of the 1800s, but it is some alternante universe which has advanced technology and weapons. Laputa is also surprisingly a funny film. The film has tons of hilarious moments, almost equal to the drama and action the film holds. I think the funniest part is a fight scene where Pazu's boss faces off against a pirate, and soon after a riot breaks out. It's funny as we see the men compare their strength and the music fits right in with it perfectly.Now let's talk about how the dub rates. An excellent cast give some great performances to bring these characters to life. Teen heartthrob James Van Der Beek plays the hero Pazu, who has a much more mature voice then in the Japanese version, where in the original he sounded more childlike. Either way, I think his voice is a nice fit with Pazu. Anna Paquin, the young Oscar winner from "The Piano", plays Sheeta. This is also a nice performance, but the voice is a bit uneven, she doesn't stay true to one accent. At times she sounds as American as apple pie, but at other times she sounds like someone from New Zealand. The performance I most enjoyed however was of Coris Leachman, who played Mama Dola. Not only is this an excellent performance, but the voice and emotion she gives the character really brings it to life. If there was ever a live action Laputa movie (G-d forbid), she would be the one to play her, you can just imagine her in the role (well, somewhat). Luke Skywalker himself, Mark Hamill is Muska, and this is another top rate Hamill performance. You may be familiar with Hamill from a long line of voice work after he did the original Star Wars movies, but he renders Muska to full evil. His voice sounds like his regular voice and mix of the Joker, who he played for many episodes on the animated Batman series. Rounding out the cast is voice character actor Jim Cummings, who does a great, gruff job as the general and Andy Dick and Mandy Patakin as members of the Dola gang.Now let me talk about what really makes this dub special, Joe Hisaishi's newly arranged music! For those who have never heard of him, Mr. Hisaishi does the music and like all of Miyazaki's films, the music is very memorable. Each of his scores has it's own personas which fits the particular film perfectly. Now, these new arrangements he has done are more "American like", which I think was the goal of the new recordings. Don't worry, the classic tunes of the Japanese version are still here in great form. The score, to me, sounds to be arranged like this is a Hollywood blockbuster. It has more power, it has more emphasis, it's clearer and deeper. The film's prologue, the first seconds where we are introduced to the airships, has some new music (I am not sure, but I believe when we first saw the ships there was no music at all). But a majority of the music has new backdrops and more background music to enjoy. Things seem very enhanced. In a powerful scene, the music is more stronger then in the original versions. In a calm scene, it's more calmer. Overall, I think many of you will be pleased with the new arrangements an mixes, I highly did myself, and personally think it helps improve the film. I prefer the new score over the old one, and I hope Disney will release or license the music rights to a full blown soundtrack.Another plus side to the dub is that the story remains faithful, and much of the original Japanese lines are intact. In Kiki, I'm sure a few lines where changed, and this is the same way, lines have been changed. But a majority are close or exactly the original lines and dialogue Miyazaki has written. I was afraid some excellent lines would be butchered, but they were there intact. Some new lines have been added as well which help out. But I am not sure whether to consider this a good thing or a bad thing, Disney DID NOT translate the ending song, it was in Japanese. I was mortified when they did completely new songs for the Kiki dub, but with this version it's the original song... in Japanese. So I guess it's good it's still the original, but bad since a majority of people seeing this dub speak English.There is a big down side to this dub, and it deals with how the voices match the character's lips. Of course in any dub it won't be perfect, but I think in Kiki and Mononoke the dubbing of lines to match were much better executed (and Disney had a little bit more time with this one...). Some of the time everything matches perfect, some of the time it doesn't completley match, and in a rare case, someone says something and the lips don't move at all (there's a scene where Sheeta chuckles and her mouth doesn't move one bit).As far as things about the film itself, these are my thoughts. I thought the most amazing part of Laputa was the animation. From the opening sequence to the ending, the animation is so lush and detailed, you just have to watch in awe. You see the true nature of each character, true detail to their face with extreme close ups and action. You have to give a ton of credit for the effort that these animators put into this film. Everything is so well done and beautifully hand drawn, it's like a moving piece of art. And to think, this was done in the mid 1980's. The animation is quite different from Disney, Ghibli has it's own distinctive flare which is very different, but very good. And after all these years, the colors look as vibrant as ever. Laputa also has tons of action sequences, lots of plane dogfights plus a few on ground. These sequences are so well done and so intriguing, it's scary that they are comparable to a big budget action film. And the finale is just something you MUST see. The sound effects are pure and classic and fit explosions, guns firing and everything else well. And like all Miyazaki films, each one focuses on a different theme (i.g. Kiki: Confidence). This one has a great a lesson on greed and power. People don't realize how greed can take over you, and how having too much power isn't good. People are obsessed with power, and are greedy, and the main villian, Muska, greatly shows this.All in all, Laputa: Castle In The Sky was a great film to begin with, and is now improved for the most part. I am glad a more mainstream audience now have the chance to see this classic animated film in all it's glory. With a great voice cast who put a lot into the film with the excellent redone musical score from Joe Hisaishi, Disney has done a nice job on this dub and is quite worthy. Though I think the voices matched the mouths better in the Kiki and Princess Mononoke Disney dubs, Castle In The Sky is still a great dub and is worth the long delays because now more can expierence a fantastic film. | 1 |
train_23186 | Please, help the economy - spend your money elsewhere! The synopsis of the movie is: the First Lady has her husband assassinated because he was cheating on her. That's it. Undetected by anyone, except Cuba and Angie, she designs and implements a vast assassination conspiracy which no one knows about...and gets away completely free.Some specific points are particularly hilarious: While standing in front of the president, Cuba a deflects the assassin's bullet...which then enters the back of the president's head.Cuba and Angie watch film from a news camera, and they see...a clue. They go to great lengths to protect the film, believing that they are the only people that have a copy of this very public film.Cuba speaks with a presidential staff member. The PSM comments that there was no conspiracy. Cuba claims there was more than one person involved. The PSM then rants that the conspiracy includes the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA. Gosh, I wonder is the PSM is involved.Ms Archer, the First Lady, is a craptacular artist. Cuba can't make out a painting, and she says, "You're too close...stand back...look from a different perspective, look from my perspective." Can anyone miss THAT clue? | 0 |
train_7243 | A brilliant Russian émigré devises the Stanislavsky' system for winning at contract bridge - which makes him and his beautiful wife the GRAND SLAM Sweethearts of America.What could have been just another silly soap opera is elevated by fine production values & excellent acting to the status of a very enjoyable little comedy. A few unexpected touches are thrown in to keep the viewer's attention engaged - the way in which the principle cast is introduced as faces on a deck of cards; the introduction of a zany acrobat into the plot for no other reason than to enjoy a bit of lunacy; and the way in which a wide variety of different kinds of Americans are shown to be transfixed by listening to the broadcast of the concluding game.Paul Lukas & Loretta Young do very well as the Bridge Sweethearts - Lukas suave & sophisticated and Miss Young passionately loving and beautiful (even if the script keeps her puffing on a cigarette a bit too much). They are fun to watch, even when their behavior is not always the most believable or compelling.Frank McHugh gives another good performance as a relentlessly cheerful ghost writer who adores Miss Young. The delightful Glenda Farrell eschews her customary wisecracking persona in a small role as McHugh's ditsy gal pal. Roscoe Karns handles the fast-talking dialogue as a brash radio announcer. Diminutive Ferdinand Gottschalk is wonderful as a snobbish bridge expert.Movie mavens will recognize Dewey Robinson as a belligerent nightclub patron; Emma Dunn as a sob sister reporter; Paul Porcasi as the owner of the Russian nightclub; Charles Lane as a Russian waiter; and Jimmy Conlin as a kibitzer at the final bridge game - all uncredited.The film takes advantage of the fad for contract bridge which had swept across the country since its development in the 1920's. It expects the viewer to have a basic knowledge of the intricacies of the game and makes no attempt to explain anything to the uninformed. | 1 |
train_6040 | I simply never tire of watching FREEBIRD. My husband was an extra so I was involved from the start. Have kept in touch with Jon and have helped out with promoting the film both in Cinemas and now the DVD release. Even to the extent of distributing promotional postcards on cross channel ferries and various places throughout France. FREEBIRD was expertly written and directed with the perfect combination of fun and serious moments plus choice casting. Only Phil Daniels could fit the role of Grouch. Great privilege to meet Jon and the cast at the party following the premier in January. Anything else you want doing Jon just ask, either email or phone, you know how to get me. Sue xx | 1 |
train_22090 | The film is based on a genuine 1950s novel.Journalist Colin McInnes wrote a set of three "London novels": "Absolute Beginners", "City of Spades" and "Mr Love and Justice". I have read all three. The first two are excellent. The last, perhaps an experiment that did not come off. But McInnes's work is highly acclaimed; and rightly so. This musical is the novelist's ultimate nightmare - to see the fruits of one's mind being turned into a glitzy, badly-acted, soporific one-dimensional apology of a film that says it captures the spirit of 1950s London, and does nothing of the sort.Thank goodness Colin McInnes wasn't alive to witness it. | 0 |
train_22627 | This show made me feel physically sick, and totally detached from British society as a whole. It was programmes such as this and Blue Peter that pretended that there were/are no class divisions in Britain. They'd always say things like; "Go into your loft and you may find this.." or "Go into your back garden tonight and..." - what about us 'scummy' working class kids who never never had a "loft", and a "back garden" which was nothing more than a 1 meter square of balcony on the 14th floor of a council block? Public service broadcasting - yeah right! And on top of that, it was awfully depressing to see those stupid, middle class, up-their-own-backside kids mess about with bits of old plastic having 'fun'... do me a favour, and "why don't you" go and slit your wrists or do a coke overdose on "Mama and Papa's" money... you make me sick | 0 |
train_7443 | An old saying goes "If you think you have problems, visit a hospital." That has been updated in recent years to "If you think you have problems, watch a TV talk show...especially Jerry Springer's!" This movie is one of those that is so bad, it's good! That's why I gave it a seven-it's all right, but not great. It's a great way to waste 95 minutes, just as the daily talk show is advertised as "an hour of your life you'll never get back!" All the familiar themes are here...unfaithful husbands/boyfriends, the wildest audience on television, women flashing Jerry, etc. The shocker was watching Molly Hagan, who normally plays sweet characters ("Seinfeld" and "Herman's Head") playing a trailer-trash mom and Jaime Pressly ("My Name Is Earl") as her equally trashy daughter, performing sexual favors for virtually every man with whom they came in contact. The men (including the staff producer) were presented as quintessential lunkheads who deserved what they got. I don't want to spoil or reveal everything but the movie plays like the daily show. Here in Phoenix, it's shown back-to-back for two hours every morning and, after that, everything else seems to pale. Again, I give this movie a seven...it's good but not great. Jerry Springer is best taken in small one hour doses. | 1 |
train_784 | Well, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It was funny and sad and yes, the guy Andie MacDowell shagged was hot. Interesting, realistic characters and plots as well as beautiful scenery. I think my Mum would like it. I still think they should have been allowed to call it the Sad F**kers Club though... | 1 |
train_4834 | For anyone who wishes to get an impression of the Soviet view of modern Russian history this monumental film is a treasure. The story starts at the turn of the century (1900) in the yellowish sepia colours of old photographs which improves to black and white during the middle of the century and to full colour when the story approaches modern times (i.e. the 1960s).The story focuses on a boy in a remote Siberian village, who is marked by the arrival and arrest of an anarchist during the czarist era. He later joins the Bolsheviks after the revolution and brings soviet communism to his village. His son, by the local beauty, fights the Germans during the Second World War. When he returns to the village, the oil industry takes off and we are treated to some Soviet economic idealism.This film is long and slow, but utterly logic and very well made. It can be seen in three parts. | 1 |
train_10309 | Now either you like Mr Carrey's humour or you don't. Me, Myself and Irene had audiences both walking out in droves and, on the other hand, cheering and collapsing in puddles of mirth. Bruce Almighty is a bit more mainstream, but you have been warned.If you're not sure, watch the trailer. I saw the trailer three times and still laughed at the same gags when I saw the film. If you don't find the sight of a dog putting the seat down after using the loo funny, don't bother with the movie.Carrey, a reporter stuck in a rut covering 'lighter news' berates God when the whole of his life seems to be going to pot. God takes up the challenge and asks Carrey if he can do better. Carrey gets into the swing of having all of God's powers by making his girlfriend (Jennifer Aniston)'s breasts bigger, getting himself promoted, and answering everyone's prayers by single stroke computer commands.This is not a highbrow movie or even that memorable, but it is very well made within it's very limited intent, provides almost continuous laughs to Carrey fans, and even any religious cheesiness is likely to be inoffensive to all but the most narrow-minded god-squadders and anti-god-squadders.On the more thoughtful level, the film tempts us to speculate about Carrey's own career - stuck in his 'comedy' typecasting he has largely failed to make an impression as a serious actor even after winning two Golden Globes. His most accomplished 'straight' role, the Man on the Moon, is less well known that his comedy romps - or The Truman Show (on which the Academy heaped three nominations whilst bypassing Carrey). | 1 |
train_11517 | If you enjoy Cleese & all the British 'Pythonesque' humour of the time, then this little gem is absolutely hilarious.Arthur Lowe is a real treat!I saw this with friends on TV when it first came out, and its classic quotes have formed a part of our jokes for 30 years, and will do forever! I have it on tape and it is continually appreciated.Perhaps some reviewers are taking it too seriously.I can't believe it is now only available in the US (NTSC of course), and not in UK, where it should be an essential part of the history of British humour!! | 1 |
train_15367 | I was lying on my bed, with a really bad cold or flu or whatever. I figure maybe I'd kill some time watching some horror movies my mom bought for me a little while ago. I wish I never picked this movie! After I watched it I felt even more sick and I wanted to throw up. Afterwords(when I got better of course) I did some research on Dennis L.Rader and I noticed that the Dennis in the movie was nothing like the real one. I hope that no one ever watches this movie but if they ever do don't eat or you'll feel the way I felt after I first watched it. I think you would have a better time watching The Santa Claus 3. At least that movie had better reviews on this site. | 0 |
train_11123 | Greetings from this Portuguese guy :)I believe The Sopranos are one of the best production ever, it has reality and fiction mixed in such a way, that it's hard to see the difference. It has the same quality as GodFather! James Gandolfini fits at the paper as a glove! I would love The Sopranos would never finish at all. It's perfect! It should be a subject in school :) I saw Sopranos when I was a kid, but I was too young to stay waked until the episode ends, so now I bought the all Episodes in DVD format and I am watching all episodes at home before and after dinner and I am getting addicted, like I did with Prison Break. In my opinion Prison Break and The Sopranos are the best-ever series made for television. The argument of both are splendid and the actors are perfect. Congratulations for such a work.Sorry about my English. Thanks for reading. | 1 |
train_962 | I just finished watching this movie and I must say that I was so impressed.Everything about it was superb. The acting the characters, the story. A believable child who grew into brave, always willing to help others. His mum must be proud. I could not take my eyes off this film for fear of missing something. It is the prefect fable/tale with morals, cute and scary sprites and 'monsters' but nevertheless heartwarming folk. A child poked and bullied at school who becomes a hero. Picked to be a rider at the local village festival and a journey to the Goblin Mountain where he discovers the Yokai, who are amazing creations that Brian Froud would be proud of. And the evil Kato and his off sider who definitely needed a hug. These evil people capture the Yokai and throw them into a red pit along with unwanted objects, like motorbikes and other mechanical things and these meld into one horribly violent robotic monsters whose only job is to kill. Takashi a young boy is the one to become their saviour, alongside a red man/dragon a turtle man and a River Princess as well as a cute little creature that, if it had been America they could have turned it into a cuddly toy and sold it at all good toy stores. The lines are good especially the Don't try this at home kids and other gems that bring a smile to your lips. Suspend belief and watch this with a child or on your own and enjoy! Though I must admit that the end was a wee bit sad. And not necessarily so. Cheers Furdion | 1 |
train_11472 | As a fan of looking further into the phenomenon that is school shootings, this film took an interesting and different approach to the idea. Presented as a series of video recordings made by the two troubled men (I cannot refer to persons who kill as boys or teens), the months of preparation leading to zero day (the codename for the day on which they will attack) the film tries to present the situation from the opposite end of the gun. It seems intent on portraying the pain they suffer, yet focuses on the literal preparation. The problem is that little in terms of emotion is directly delivered. The only point at which emotion became overwhelming was the ending, as expected. But leading up to this point, it's never really clear as to why they are planning this out. We are told the obligatory story that they were mocked, but the film also seems to contradict this. Without ruining the film, it's easy to say it was a great attempt and had equally great intentions, but falls short because of sloppy film-making. All directing is amateur, to further the homemade video concept, but the story and continuity is weak. The film seems to want the audience to decide a lot, but also fails to provide the information for such an event. The ending is abrupt, and doesn't feel like it finishes everything that the film began. | 1 |
train_11640 | What I liked best in this film is that like the films of Hitchcock, it is a thriller that does not take itself too seriously.Hitchcock understood that people go the the movies to have a good time. Something that Hollywood seems to have forgotten in recent years. This is a thriller, but it has plenty of laughs and always has one eye winking at the camera.Rachel McAdams is wonderful as always. Cillian Murphy is creepier than he was in Batman Begins. In the old days, there were guys who always played the bad guy. We don't see much of that these days because I suspect the Hollywood agents consider it a bad career move, but Cillian Murphy is really good at being bad.The directing is surprising stylish. The story is good but the dialog could have used some sprucing up."Red Eye" is a really fun film and people were applauding when the closing credits started rolling. If you are in the mood for an enjoyable escapist thriller, "Red Eye" might be your ticket. | 1 |
train_12415 | This was obviously the prototype for Mick Dundee but 'The Adventures of Barry McKenzie is funnier. I was amused throughout and laughed out loud plenty of times. Terrific central performance by Barry Crocker in the title role, an Australian who invades England to upset the poms with his free-flowing uncouth ways. Few Brits will be upset by Barry's frequently cruel observations on his hosts. The relationsip between the two countries is prickly but friendly and this is highlighted by the film's final line, delivered by a somewhat reluctant McKenzie as he boards the plane home. "I was just starting to like the poms." | 1 |
train_11666 | THE SECRET OF KELLS may be the most exquisite film I have seen since THE TRIPLETS OF BELLEVILLE. Although stylistically very different, KELLS shares with TRIPLETS and (the jaw-dropping opening 2D sequence of) KUNG FU PANDA, incredible art direction, production design, background/layout and a richness in color that is a feast for one's senses. KELLS is so lavish -- almost Gothic in its layout (somewhat reminiscent of Klimt), wonderfully flat in general overall perspective, ornate in its Celtic & illuminated design, yet the characters are so simplistic and appealing -- AND it all works together beautifully. You fall in love with the characters from the moment you meet them. You are so drawn to every detail of the story and to every stroke of the pencil & brush. What Tomm, Nora, Ross, Paul and all at Cartoon Saloon (& their extended crews) have achieved with this small budget/VERY small crewed film, is absolutely astounding. The groundswell of support amongst our animation community is phenomenal. This film is breathtaking and the buzz amongst our colleagues in recommending this film is spreading like wildfire. Congratulations to KELLS on its many accolades, its Annie nomination as well as its current Oscar qualifying run. They are all very well-deserved nods, indeed... | 1 |
train_4877 | Actually one particular person/character isn't "right there", but my summary line is referring to the power of the movie. And this is all achieved without any fancy camera moves and/or big production sets, but with a great story and very (believable) and good actors conveying the story (arc).You could call it a companion piece to great japan movies/cinema (such as Tokyo Story etc.), not so much story-wise of course, but more mood-wise! Great acting, nuances in the performances that are truly gems. If you're eager to experience a touching story and want to see a movie touching you emotionally, than this is the one to go. As you have noticed (as with many of my reviews), I'm not getting into the story. There are places here at IMDb where you can look those up, I'm not one to spoiler the story whatsoever! | 1 |
train_2222 | i loved this movie it was one of the years best pornos i remember watching it on starz or some god damn thing but it was great. i only saw like half of it and i taped it and all i can say is i loved every minute of what i saw. i didnt sleep for weeks after i saw this movie (although i was very tired.) | 1 |
train_11020 | After the unexpected accident that killed an inexperienced climber (Michelle Joyner). Eight months has passed... The Rocky Mountain Rescue receive a distress call set by a brilliant terrorist mastermind Eric Quaien (John Lithgow). Quaien has lost three large cases that has millions of dollars inside. Two experienced climbers Walker (Sylvester Stallone) and Tucker (Micheal Rooker) and a helicopter pilot (Janine Turner) are to the rescue but they are set by a trap by Quaien and his men. Now the two climbers and pilot are forced to play a deadly game of hide and seek. While Quaien is trying to find the millions of dollars and he kidnapped Tucker to find the money. Once Tucker finds the money, Tucker will be dead. Against explosive firepower, bitter cold and dizzying heights. Walker must outwit Quaien for survival.Directed by Renny Harlin (Driven, Mindhunters, A Nightmare on Elm Street 4:The Dream Master) made an entertaining non-stop action picture. This film is a spectacular, exciting, visually exciting action picture with plenty of dark humour as well. This was one of the biggest hits of 1993. This is one of Harlin's best film. Lithgow is a terrific entertaining villain. Stallone certainly made an short comeback of this sharp thriller. This is probably Harlin's best work as a filmmaker.DVD has an sharp anamorphic Widescreen (2.35:1) transfer and an terrific-Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD has an running commentary track by the director with comments by Stallone. DVD also has technical crew commentary as well. DVD has behind the scenes featurette, two deleted scenes with introduction by the director and more. Do not miss this great action film. Screenplay by Micheal France (Fantastic Four) and actor:Stallone (The Rocky Series). Based on a premise by John Long. Excellent Cinematography by Alex Thomson, B.S.C. (Alien³, Demolition Man, Legend). Oscar Nominated for Best Sound, Best Sound Editing and Best Visual Effects. Panavision. (****/*****). | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.