id stringlengths 7 11 | text stringlengths 52 10.2k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|---|
train_14482 | Who? What? Where? When? Why? The acting was terrible. Very robotic, rehearsed. I have seen all of the actors in this film in better roles. The screenplay was very elementary. By the end of this film, the story line was tied up. And Jeane Claude LaMarre should be tied up, too. So that he never attempts to write/direct another film. | 0 |
train_9703 | One of the best comedy series to ever come out of Britain. Mark Gatiss,Reece Shearsmith and Steve Pemberton are terrific actors and performers who seem at home with drama as they are with comedy. Ably supported by their writing partner Jeremy Dyson, they have peopled the series with the most memorable characters of recent years. Little Britain pales into insignificance as a poor imitation of their ideas. Consistently original and groundbreaking I am sure that as many people hate these series as love them but I am equally as sure that no one could have no opinion on LOG. I have yet to see the feature length movie but I have heard good things and bad things so I will reserve judgement.The original radio series from which LOG came was as innovative as the TV series became. I don't know whether the TV series made it to the US but I would be fascinated to see how American audiences found the weird Englishness of the humour | 1 |
train_17941 | Of all the films I have seen, this one, The Rage, has got to be one of the worst yet. The direction, LOGIC, continuity, changes in plot-script and dialog made me cry out in pain. "How could ANYONE come up with something so crappy"? Gary Busey is know for his "B" movies, but this is a sure "W" movie. (W=waste).Take for example: about two dozen FBI & local law officers surround a trailer house with a jeep wagoneer. Inside the jeep is MA and is "confused" as to why all the cops are about. Within seconds a huge gun battle ensues, MA being killed straight off. The cops blast away at the jeep with gary and company blasting away at them. The cops fall like dominoes and the jeep with Gary drives around in circles and are not hit by one single bullet/pellet. MA is killed and gary seems to not to have noticed-damn that guy is tough. Truly a miracle, not since the six-shooter held 300 bullets has there been such a miracle. | 0 |
train_18802 | The British 'heritage film' industry is out of control. There's nothing wrong with filming classic novels, but why must they all be filmed by talentless nobodies? This film rips the guts out of Orwell's tough novel, turning it into a harmless, fluffy romantic comedy. 'Aspidistra' may not be Orwell's best work, but no-one who reads it can forget its superb depiction of poverty. Orwell emphasises not only the cold and the hunger, but the humiliation of being poor. In the novel, London is a bleak, grey, cold, heartless city, and Comstock prays for it to be blasted away by a squadron of bombers. But this film irons out anything that might be in any way disturbing, and creates instead a jolly nostalgic trip to charming 1930s London, in which everything is lit with shafts of golden sunlight, and even the slums of Lambeth are picturesque and filled with freshly scrubbed urchins and happy prostitutes. Comstock's poems about the sharp wind sweeping across the rubbish-strewn streets seem completely out of place in this chocolate-box world. Worst of all is the script's relentless bonhomie, ancient jokes, and clunking dialogue. It's so frustrating because Richard E. Grant is the perfect person to play Gordon Comstock, and the film is packed with great actors. But it's all for nothing. This film made me so angry! Britain's literary history is something to be proud of for its richness, complexity and power. And what do we do with it? We employ bland nobodies to turn it into soft-centred, anodyne pap for people who want to feel that they are 'getting some culture' while they drink their Horlicks and quietly doze off. | 0 |
train_2284 | This is a very chilling, and for the most part, a well thought out drama. I am very impressed at the film, not just for the plot and superb acting, but that such a unique movie was made. Most movies involving a spy or a war are filled with a slick talking Brit or a mighty battle, but not this. This isn't about this kind of war, its about the war between a man and his position in life, an American spy in Germany, posing as a supporter of an evil no one will ever forget. When the war is over, Campell thinks he will come home as a hero, but his true heroic stance must remain a government secret. Going back to America, Campell meets Nazi supporters as well as Nazi haters, providing for interesting conflicts, both internally and externally. Nolte more than pulls off the role, and fits the plot quite well for what it's asking. | 1 |
train_6640 | This one-minute film is arguably the first movie ever made. Other inventors had previously filmed actions - like Edison's motion photography of a sneeze - but the Lumiere brothers developed equipment that tremendously advanced the medium. At the time, of course, their `cinematograph' must have bewildered their peers, including their subjects. In this first instance, the brothers record employees leaving their factory, some of whom understandably struggle to hide their awareness of the camera. The Lumieres attempt to make the film more entertaining by introducing animals and a bicycle, but `La Sortie Des Usines Lumiere' doesn't nearly match the ingenuity of their later films. The most interesting aspect of this short film is the brothers' selection of a familiar working class ritual as their subject. Their choice is the initial evidence of their curiosity about all of the world's people, a quality that makes viewing their experiments immensely rewarding and fascinating today.Rating: 8 | 1 |
train_23974 | This relic of a short film starts with a teen going through the process of attempting to get a driver's license. It quickly becomes sidetracked with just about every imaginable topic relating to cars.Such things as dune buggies, drag racing, custom paint jobs and car shows are discussed. It often attempts to be humorous but instead the film is dull, drawn out and even sexist at times. None of the people in the film are actually heard. Instead, everything is done in narration and voiceovers. Sorry, but I can't stand that.There is nothing educational or interesting about "Dad, Can I Borrow The Car?". It's just another piece of mindless filler to take up time on their "Wonderful World Of Disney" TV show. 1/10 | 0 |
train_14833 | A dreary, hopelessly predictable film set in a most unpleasant setting (lower Coachella Valley). Acting is as amateurish as any I've seen. Looks like a screenwriting 101 script. However, it does function as a great sedative. | 0 |
train_6893 | Gerard Phillipe is absolutely perfect in this movie, funny, tender, brave and lover.He gives a superior dimension to a movie which is even a masterpiece, as much by the other actors (Gina Lollobrigida:miaoooou!!) as by the story or the rhythm. Never boring, always creating new emotions: for me, the best french movie of all time. | 1 |
train_2642 | Truly this is a 'heart-warming' film. It won the George Peobody Award, winning over "Roots", so that may tell you something of the essence of this film. I am looking on the Internet how to order this movie since my former father-in-law, Eugene Logan, the co-writer of this film has been deceased for a few years now so I no longer have the opportunity to receive information from him. I would love to have his only grand-daughters, my daughters, see this film, as well as to pass this wonderful story on to his great-grandsons. My oldest daughter was seven years old at the time it was aired on television and I since have been looking forward to seeing it again. One of my friends said it was her favorite movie. I won't 'spoil' this movie for you. | 1 |
train_12459 | This movie is definately one of my favourite movies in it's kind. The interaction between respectable and morally uncorruptable characters is an ode to chivalry and the honour code amongst thieves and policemen. It treats themes like duty, guilt, word, manipulation and trust like few films have done and, unfortunately, none that I can recall since the death of the 'policial' in the late seventies. The sequence is delicious, down to the essential, living nothing out and thus leading the spectator into a masterful plot right and wrong without accessory eye catching and spectacular scenes that are often needed in lesser specimens of the genre in order to keep the audience awake. No such scenes are present or needed. The argument is flowless and honest to the spectator, wich is an important asset in a genre in wich the the suspense is often achieved through the betrail of the audience. No, this is not miss Marble... A note of congratulations for the music is in order A film to watch and savour every minute, not just to see. | 1 |
train_5529 | I first saw this movie in a theater in France a year or so ago. It came and went with little fanfare, but I enjoyed it for the beauty of the landscape photography and the fascinating wildlife footage. (The story, while nice, is really incidental. If you actually thought about it, there is no way most of what happens could happen in real life.) I just saw it again tonight, here in the States, on DVD. Again, I gather it has very limited distribution. Blockbusters only had one copy of it, and I don't recall it ever playing in the art houses in Cleveland.Seen on my TV, the photography is not as breathtaking, though it is still very beautiful. The wildlife footage is still fascinating. The story of the relationship between the 10-year old child and the fox is even less convincing the second time around, when you know where it's headed.Still, as I said, the story is incidental. It's a beautiful film to watch, and if you like wildlife footage, you should find this fascinating. | 1 |
train_4766 | It is unusual to see a film where the performance of a single actor is so good that one can feel that the film would be of little interest, if any, without his presence.Despite a not outstanding direction - in fact, there are many scenes that seem to have been shooted too quickly and carelessly -, a seemingly low budget, a strange plot about a man who wants to take the place of a defrocked priest and another week points, the presence of Pierre Fresnay is so impressive that one gets shocked from the very begining to the terrible end.I have never seen nor can iomagine for future a better performance, even Paul Scofield acting in "A man for all seasons".Actually the end could be considered even ridiculous if Fresnay were not playing the transtorned priest who returns to Church by performing a crime."Je suis Maurice Morand, prètre catholique" ("I am Maurice Morand, a catholic priest")is said with such a brilliancy that one may forget the madness that conducted to that end.The other impressive thing this film has is a single scene in wich Morand - who despite being a defrocked one is stil a priest - consacrates in a cabaret a huge amount of vine turning it into Christ´s blood.Gérard - the man that wants to return Morand to the Church or replace him by himself - has to drink it if he doesn´t want to leave it in the cabaret. He does so in mid of cheers and applauses from people who think that he is simply drinking three of four litters of vine.In next scene, the dialoque between Morand and a garbage collector is also remarkable. "Do you carry away men too?" asks Morand, who hates himself for what he has just done. "That would be too much work" is the smart answer.The rest of the film is not worth commenting but it is certainly worth seeing due to the very strong and strangely emotive atmosphere created all the time.I think that "Le défroqué" is a very strange film, but has to be seen by all viewers - if the are good catholiques it is mandatory - because it is a very rare jewell in film history. | 1 |
train_15455 | Poor Whoopi Goldberg. Imagine her at a friend's dinner party, and she adds a comment to the in-depth political discussion going on. People just look at her and say, "Oh what would YOU know, you were the star of 'Theodore Rex'". How could anyone take her seriously after she lowered herself to be the star of this appalling piece of crap? Even little kids would be cringing in horror at this Thing. It reminded me of a particularly bad episode of 'Sigmund And The Sea Monsters'. Actually, come to think of it, 'Sigmund' was vastly superior to this.And however did it get made? By plying the producer with an illegal substance before telling him about it? Watch this hideous abomination at your own peril. | 0 |
train_14969 | I suppose if you like endless dialogue that doesn't forward the story and flashy camera effects like the scene transitions in the television show _Angel_, you'll enjoy the film. Me? All I wanted was a nice, tight little story, and it wasn't there. The pacing was practically backward, plot points were buried under a sea of unneeded dialogue, and there was absolutely no sense of dread, or tension, or ANYTHING.Is it the redneck? Is it the Wendigo? No, it's a cameraman on speed. That's not scary. It doesn't generate a single note of tension or atmosphere unless you're scared by MTV. Like those reviewers before me, I too noticed that by the end the movie invokes derisive laughter from the audience.Terrible film. | 0 |
train_6466 | I really loved this movie and so did the audience that I saw it with in Los Angeles. After the film, lots of people were crying and saying how much the film had affected them. I can see why it was such a huge hit in its homeland, Sweden. The film is masterfully directed and each character brilliantly drawn so that by the end you really know these people and care about them. The music is very natural and the main song in the film quite heartbreaking but inspiring. Would definitely recommend this film for everyone to see - even people who don't normally go to subtitled films. Definitely deserved the Oscar Nomination because of the profound themes of the film reflected without pretension in a small-town community with everyday people. It is a film that unites us in this divided world and shows us the potential of the human spirit. A MUST SEE! | 1 |
train_11799 | A well cast summary of a real event! Well, actually, I wasn't there, but I think this is how it may have been like. I think there are two typically American standpoints evident in the film: 'communistophobia' and parallels to Adolf Hitler. These should be evident to most independent observers. Anyway, Boothe does a great performance, and so do lots of other well-known actors. The last twenty minutes of the film are unbearable - and I mean it! Anyone who can sleep well after them is abnormal. (That's why it's so terrible - it all happened, and it probably looked just like that). But, actually, did that last scene on the air station really take place? | 1 |
train_11026 | Was this based on a comic-book? A video-game? A drawing by a 3 year-old? There is nothing in this movie to be taken seriously at all; not the characters, not the dialog, not the plot, not the action. Nothing. We have high-tech international terrorists/criminals who bicker like pre-school kids, Stallone's man-of-steel-type resilience towards ice-cold weather, dialog so dumb that it's sometimes almost hilarious, and so on. Even the codename that the bad guys use is dumb ("tango-tango"). A film that entertains through some suspense, good action-sequences, and a nice snowy mountainous setting. Oh, yes: and the unintentional humour.The film opens with some truly bad and unconvincing gay banter between our go-lucky and happy characters who are obviously having a "swell" time. Then comes a sweat-inducing failed-rescue part, which should make anyone with fear-of-heights problems want to pull their hair out. And then we have some more bad dialog, and after that some more great action. This is the rhythm of the film in a nutshell. Stallone's melodramatic exchange with Turner, when they meet after a long time, is so soapy, so clichéd, so fake, and so bad that it should force a chuckle out of any self-respecting viewer. Soon after this display of awful dialog-writing, we are witnesses to a spectacular and excellently shot hijack of an airplane. The entire action is one big absurdity, but it's mindless fun at its best. Although the rest of the action is exciting and fun, the airplane scenes are truly the highlight of the film. After the landing, our master-criminals seek for a guide and end up with Stallone and Rooker. They send Stallone to fetch the first case of money, but somehow they do everything to make it as difficult as possible for him to reach it; they take most of his clothes off (so he can freeze) and they won't give him the equipment he needs (so he can fall off). DO THESE GANGSTERS WANT THEIR MONEY FETCHED OR NOT??? Very silly. Apparently they don't trust Stallone, but surely they know that they can always black-mail him by using Rooker as a hostage. Nevertheless, our gangsters make Stallone's climb difficult, if for no logical reasons then to at least show us how truly evil they are - lest there be any doubts. And for those who might still doubt how evil the bad guys are, they overact, brag, and snicker in a truly evil manner. Everyone convinced? Good. You'd better be. Otherwise the writers will throw in a mass execution of twenty school children, just to make sure that the evilness of the bad guys is crystal-clear to everyone.The old guy who flies the chopper... How the hell did he fall for the trap? Firstly, he must have been warned by the MTV airhead about the criminals, and secondly, he must have heard Stallone's and Rooker's voices on the walkie-talkies. A whole bunch of idiotic verbal exchanges take place, with Lithgow having the questionable honour of getting most of the silly lines. "Get off my back!" Lithgow: "I haven't even started climbing on your back." Or, Lithgow to Stallone: "We had a deal, but now we only have each other!" And as for Lithgow's gang of murderers: these guys never seem to want to kill immediately. They are very creative about it; they philosophize, pretend that they are playing football with your body, and so on. Stallone co-wrote this thing. I have no idea what drugs he was on when he did it. I'd hate to think the script is this bad because of a low I.Q. | 1 |
train_13640 | Scary, but mostly in the sense that will it be over before I turn 70. I saw this as a late night re-run in about 1976 and thought it would never end. Like crackers, it's better than nothing (but just).Ray Milland is a little scary because he looks as if he's been stuffed by a taxidermist. Yvette Mimeux looks as if she's smoked up all the Beautiful Downtown Burbank Brown. It's a sort of Roy Rogers version of Rosemary's Baby. This is one turkey that should never have been made. If you have insomnia and it's 1:30 on Saturday morning and there's nothing on but replays of the 1972 Roller Derby Chamionship, then I guess it beats that. But God help you if this is your only choice for entertainment. | 0 |
train_20455 | Carrie Fisher has stated on more than one occasion that she made this movie during a period of her life when she had a heavy cocaine problem, and she doesn't remember very much of it. That would explain why she made this film, but it doesn't explain why anyone else in the cast or crew did; I can't believe that EVERYBODY had a coke problem. This has to be one of the absolute worst movies ever made, and that's saying something. The blame can't be laid at the feet of "director" Tim Kincaid or "writer" Buddy Giovinazzo, as it is obvious that this picture wasn't written or directed by anyone. Apparently it just spontaneously came together, as there is little evidence of coherency, consistency, design, plot, sense, intelligence or anything else. What is really amazing is that there were some actual professionals who were involved in this glop. Co-star Robert Joy has done good work in other films, and composer Jimmie Haskell and cinematographer Arthur Marks are both industry veterans, Marks also having been a director, and not a bad one. Why they got involved in this steaming pile of offal is beyond comprehension. Tim Kincaid, the alleged "director", has made quite a few low-rent sci-fi and horror films, and, having seen most of them, I can tell you that not a one of them is any good. This one, though, is by far the worst thing he's ever done, and that is a major accomplishment on his part. Everything, absolutely EVERYTHING, about this movie is 12th-rate--at best. The cinematography is terrible, the acting is laughable, the "special effects" make "Plan 9 From Outer Space" look like "Spider-Man", the story is trite, derivative and stupid. Don't waste your time even looking at the video box cover, let alone renting it. A complete, utter, annoying, total dud. | 0 |
train_978 | Billed as Takashi Miike's "first family film" - by people who haven't seen Zebraman, presumably. YOKAI DAISENSO takes things even further in the direction of family-friendliness, diluting the darkness and cynicism to create a grand fantasy fairy tale. A young boy is chosen by fate to save the world from monsters and horrors of which they remain largely unaware. The film is evidently bigger budget than anything else Miike has done, with lots of CGI to create fantasy world populated by odd creatures (the YOKAI). Perhaps the lack of extreme content is a consequence of more nervous investors, but I think it's probably just that he wanted to do something different. He's really never been a one-trick pony, but often gets accused of it - perhaps YOKAI is designed to silence those critics. Regardless, it's a great project for Miike to channel his boundless imagination and invention into.There's a very cartoonish feel to the production, evoking thoughts of Miyazaki in places. The Yokai are based on an old series of comics that were in turned based on Japanese folk tales, which certainly influenced Miyazaki as well (particularly SPIRITED AWAY). It must remembered that Miike has nothing like the budget of a Harry Potter film to work with, so the special effects aren't going to be seamless Hollywood style work - some blue-screening is especially obvious. Some of the special effects are great though, with some very well animated creatures (a mix of CG, stop-motion and puppetry). I think the little sock-puppet that follows the hero around for much of the film was *meant* to look really cheap, and is all the cuter for it :) The young lad who plays the hero of the film does a really good job - it's so hard to find a pre-teen who actually understands the concept of acting, but 9 year old Ryunosuke Kamiki is a genuine talent (I see he did voices in the last 2 Miyazaki films!). Chiaki Kuriyama is delicious as the villainess of the piece, though Mai Takahashi made an even greater impression as the pixie-eared River Princess - yum yum! Those looking for another violent, perverted gangster film aren't going to find what they're looking for in YOKAI, but if you're a fan of Miike because of his imagination and wit, there's plenty to satisfy here. And it has the added bonus that you can happily put it on whatever company you've got :) | 1 |
train_18776 | THE BROKEN is part of the After Dark Horrorfest III. Not a slasher or filled with gore. Plenty of broken glass and mirrors in this edgy thriller from France and writer/director Sean Ellis. A successful radiologist Gina McVay(Lena Headly)inters a strange world as her life seems to spiral out of control. While attending her father's(Richard Jenkins)birthday party, the guests are stunned when a mirror crashes to the floor for no obvious reason. Things get really strange when she witnesses a woman that is the spitting image of herself driving down a London street in a car identical to her own. Gina sneaks to her doppelganger's apartment and finds a photo of herself with her father. She drives away and is involved in a head on collision. Then mysteriously her boyfriend is not the same; to be exact family and friends are not easy for her to trust. Is Gina beside herself? Is she in a parallel world? Her nightmares become more horrific...is she broken?Kudos if you can figure this one out...it won't be easy. Editing couldn't be any tighter. Lighting is questionable. Other players: Melvil Poupard, William Armstrong, Michelle Duncan and Ulrich Thomsen. | 0 |
train_10146 | As we all know a romantic comedy is the genre with the ending already known. The two leads always have to get together. Late in the third act I was trying to figure out how this will wrap up and how they will end up together. A clue was given right from the start, but you'll never realize it until the end. It's a simple hook, but it works. It Had To Be You cover a lot of the usual ground, but takes a fresh spin when ever possible. I liked all the NY characters and I loved the locations. It's a postcard of NY. Also it was nice to watch a film and not find anything offensive in it. So, if you like a good old fashion romantic movie ... then this is for you. | 1 |
train_15023 | R O B O T J O X.Burn the master.Grotesquely horrible.No ending; no closure.Completely and utterly the worst movie ever made.Replaces "The Adventures of Pluto Nash" as the worst movie of all time.I hate this utterly unacted, unedited, unscripted, undirected, unproduced mess of a thing called "Robot Jox" - and I just found out - THEY MADE A SECOND ONE!?!? I apologize to Adma Sandler (Zohar the Beauticin) and Eddie Murphy (Pluto Nash) for hating their movies. This mess of a thing makes those movies only bad - not terrible horrible and grotesque like this thing. This is the only movie for which I have ever said this - REMOVE IT FROM NETFLIX - NOW!!! 10,000 out of 10 people found this comment helpful. | 0 |
train_5035 | McConaughey in a horror/thriller? I had to see this. I was pleasantly surprised.The plot is told in flashback mode, and it concerns an otherwise normal and happy family of three going through a very bizarre predicament. I can't say much more without spoiling the whole movie, sorry. Just know that if you decide to watch it, you'll be, in the very least, surprised.All the main players are very good. Bill Paxton did a great job directing those kids, and his acting is awesome. McConaughey's acting is solid throughout and fits the bill perfectly.This movie challenges you to think. Is Dad crazy? Is there a God? Do Demons exist? How far would you go to right a wrong. And what is "right" anyway? I'm still thinking.And thus I recommend "Frailty". 7/10 and this is one of those movies that deserves and rewards a second, or even third viewing. | 1 |
train_23541 | The show is average. It doesn't make me laugh particularly. However, I think Courtney really brings it down. She doesn't look natural. She has these three ways to talk, all robotic. She talks quietly (with no intonation), she talks normally (with no intonation), or she does that thing where she starts talking normally, and starts yelling gradually. However, her yelling is like "let's pretend I'm yelling because I shouldn't be too loud on the set". She is constantly aware of herself being this cute actress doing this funny thing. It's annoying. You can't really get her personality, because she doesn't really produce emotion, and doesn't get upset. She has this husband, who's doing all these stupid things, and there is no reaction from her. Very dry and plain acting. | 0 |
train_23275 | This movie is horrible! It rivals "Ishtar" in the number of embarrassingly bad moments. I would have rated it lower than a 3, save for a couple of funny lines; but, overall, this film was crap! It looked like they made it over a weekend at some bankrupt resort somewhere. Joe Roth should join Elaine May on the directing sidelines forever! | 0 |
train_4311 | This work is less about Steve Martin's character Davis, than it is about Kline (Mack) and Glover (Simon), and Kline and McDonnell (Claire), but the dialog inserted via Davis is pondering, contemplative, near-poetic existentialism at its best. He is witty, intelligent, and thoughtful in both dialog delivery and content. The writers deserved an Oscar.The performances are easy, relaxed, and natural; just what you would expect from "A List" actors. Martin contributes the performance which leads into his more recent Shopgirl, guiding you through life, love, and the pursuit of wisdom if not happiness. Kline is the straight - the suit - the conformist of the film, and as such his performance is crisp and refreshing.This work deals with life in all aspects. It engenders a true emotional investment in its characters, and leaves you feeling hopeful that Mankind is not doomed, after all, no matter WHAT you believe, deep down.All in all? This is delightful, with a gritty moment or two, and easy natural dialog which draws you in, assisting its audience in gaining a high enjoyment from this work. It's definitely worth your time, though it may not be every one's top choice as Friday/Saturday night entertainment.I really enjoyed the intelligence this exhibited. It's not typical, and was an unexpected surprise. Another wonderful surprise was the honesty exhibited herein. The couples and friends hold detailed conversations, which feel and sound fully honest and (again) natural. I was very impressed with this work, and will be adding it to the DVD collection soon.It rates a 9.1/10 from...the Fiend :. | 1 |
train_11602 | Now I had the pleasure of first viewing Contaminated Man when it premiered on TV back in December of 2000.An infectious disease expert (William Hurt) looses his family when an unknown disease enters his home and kills them. Now some years later he is now in Russia or someplace. I'm not sure where exactly, all I know is it takes place somewhere in that area. Anyway, because of budget cutbacks at an infectious disease laboratory, they are forced to lay off most of their workers. One of them, a disgruntled security guard named Joseph Muller (played Peter Weller, best known for his role as the indestructible Robocop) goes in there and demands that they give him his job back. He needs this job because he is divorced and he needs it to pay child support. So he goes in there, a fight breaks out, and some things get knocked over, dangerous things. It's soon discovered that Muller has been infected with a deadly pathogen. In fact it's so deadly, one drop of his blood will kill a person in matter of seconds. Soon word gets out and the disease expert (Hurt) is called in to investigate and he later teamed up with an American reporter. Now Muller is determined to get home to see his wife and son and will stop at nothing even if he has to infect the entire Russian population.Now as I said before this film is a lot like Falling Down. We have a disturbed person (Weller here, Michael Douglas in Falling Down) who will stop at nothing to accomplish there goal even if they have to kill a few people in the process. Next we have a hero-type person (Hurt here, Robert Duvall in Falling Down) who is both sympathetic and determined to stop the antagonist.Contaminated Man is in fact a very good film with a good story line and some very good performances.8/10 | 1 |
train_16876 | OK the plot is, wait you got me there is no true discernible plot here just a string of optically fogged sex scenes, strung together by scenes of photographers taking pictures of pretty ladies (Sometimes a combination of the two) Then a demon comes around kills the men, rapes and kills the women, and waxes poetic about the meaning of life. Moronic special effects, bad acting and bizarre philosophy aside, you get what you expect from a film with a title like this. I guess it would have to be someone's cup of tea, just not mine as I have yet to see a good Kazuo 'Gaira' Komizu directed film.DVD Extras: Subtitled Interview with Director Kazuo Komizu Part 1 (Part 2 is on the Entrails of a Beautiful Woman DVD); and Theatrical TailerMy Grade: F | 0 |
train_16315 | The acting is bad ham, ALL the jokes are superficial and the target audience is clearly very young children, assuming they have below average IQs. I realize that it was meant for kids, but so is Malcom in the Middle, yet they still throw in adult humor and situations.What should we expect from a show lead by Bob Saget, the only comedian in existence who is less funny than a ball hitting a man's groin, which is probably why he stopped hosting America's Funniest Home Videos.Parents, do not let your kids watch this show unless you want to save money on college. Expose your kids to stupidity and they will grow up dumberer. | 0 |
train_3644 | The Rookie is based on the true story of a 40+ year old school teacher in Big Lake, Texas reaching the majors. Jimmy Morris (Dennis Quaid) is a small-town high school science teacher and baseball coach. His team is losing terribly until the team discovers that their coach played in minor leagues and can throw a pitch 98 mph. After throwing batting practice and a wager is made, Jim agrees that if his team wins regional's, he'll try out for the Major Leagues. The movie tells the story from Jimmy being boy to playing in his first game in the majors. It is a great underdog story and a very friendly family movie. Dennis Quaid makes the movie worth while, giving an emotional performance and is supported by an excellent supporting cast which includes: Brian Cox, Rachel Griffiths, and Angus T. Jones. The story takes a little while to develop and some scenes are a bit slow but it all works in well by the end. The baseball scenes are fun, well-filmed, and portrayed excellently. The movie really isn't about baseball but about one man's quest to reach his dream. It's inspiring, it's emotional, and it's funny. I liked it, I hope you do.The Rookie. Starring: Dennis Quaid, Brian Cox, Rachel Griffiths, and Angus T. Jones.4 out of 5 Stars. | 1 |
train_17758 | Well, i rented this movie and found out it realllllllly sucks. It is about that family with the stepmother and the same stupid fights in the family,then the cool son comes with his stupid camera and he likes to take a photo to damaged building and weird things and weird movie ,and then he asks his father to take him to a side trip and simply agrees, etc etc etc..... They go to that town which no one know it exists (blah blah blah) And the most annoying thing is that the movie ends and yet you don't understand what is THAT MOVIE!!!!I have seen many mystery movies but that was the worst, Honestly it doesn't have a description at all and i wish i didn't see it. | 0 |
train_6408 | A Classic Hollywood Biopic is the best sense of the genre. Gooding and DeNiro both give spectacularly heartfelt performances in the two leads roles, and the supporting cast is uniformly excellent, with standout performances by Carl Lumbly and Michael Rapoport. The only "nit" I might pick is that Theron's role was unnecessary & distracting (not her performance which was fine, it's just that the film seemed to add two unnecessary scenes to accommodate her role.)Aside from that, the characterizations, dynamics, and action of the real-life story are riveting and unforgettable. The evolutions of the main characters and how what they experience evolves their beings are uniquely characterized by the performing artists. Despite the movie's extreme length, the pacing stays intact throughout. The score is also terrific.Us this a predictable Hollywood film? You bet. So, Mike Leigh addicts should subtract a star, but everyone else should enjoy mightily. | 1 |
train_14904 | Man, was I disappointed.1) Adam Arkin is more whiny than Ross Geller from 'Friends' 2) A great cast is wasted (Kenneth Mars, Alan Arkin, Ed McMahon, Pat Morita, Louis Nye) with this amateurish script.3) The movie suffers from horrible pacing. It jumps around through in a jumbled, confusing manner.4) The story doesn't even make sense. Why does he want to break the football streak? What about the stupid violin music? None of it is explained.5) It's not even funny. It's like a bunch of accountants trying to do improv, saying "Lookit me! Lookit me I'm being funny!" This was a bad attempt at making another "Love At First Bite".I like Larry Cohen movies, but man he failed here. I couldn't wait for the credits to roll. Horribly disappointed. | 0 |
train_20168 | The minute the forward started, I knew we were in for trouble! The premise is laughable at best. The story line was even worse, if that is possible.The acting was stiff and the actors gave off a sense of inexperience. You expect more from the likes of Slater, Reid and Dorff. Lines were delivered as if from a robot. And I'm sorry, I like Reid but she was VERY unbelievable as an archaeologist. Slater and Dorff picked a lousy film to try and stage their comebacks. The continuity was off through out the entire film. The creatures weren't bad, but they really weren't good either. Bottom line, I want that ninety minutes of my life back. They can keep the money, but give me the time! What a waste. | 0 |
train_6300 | I loved this film. I thought it would be easy to watch, and easy to forget. I ran out after watching this to buy the DVD, obv not easily forgotten!The script is brilliant, and the casting couldn't be more perfect. Each character has their moment, and I laughed hard throughout this film, comedic timing was spot-on. | 1 |
train_13364 | Even though there's a repertoire of over 180 films to choose from, this 'Succubus' is often named as THE best Jess Franco film. Heck, even the legendary filmmaker Fritz Lang counts 'Succubus' among his personal favorites. So, maybe it's me but I thought this was a dreadfully boring and overly confusing movie. The opening is great, though, and shows Janine Reynaud performing an SM act on stage. It's all downhill from here, unfortunately. Reynaud's character is a maneater who eventually kills her lovers in some sort of trance. Franco had a decent budget to work with and spends it well on nice locations, beautiful photography and a mesmerizing musical score. This COULD have been his greatest film indeed, if it wasn't for the lame and uninteresting story. It's supposed to be psychedelic but I'd say sophomoric is a better term to describe what's shown here. Half of the time, you don't have a clue what's going on or what exactly is said so even the short running time of 80 minutes seems to last ages. This most certainly isn't Franco's best film according to me. I wouldn't even recommend it to die-hard exploitation fans. If you're looking for more superior Jess Franco film, try to get your hands on 'Las Vampiras', 'The awful Dr. Orloff' or 'Female Vampire'. | 0 |
train_5383 | I thought this movie was excellent,for the fact that Corrine and Sean are newcomers to the business.It was packed with action and a little romance,but there were some points when Corrine didn't speak very clearly (when she threatened Sean with the gun) and she clenched her teeth...maybe she was supposed to?I think the roles of Joseph and Sonny were portrayed very well,and there was an obvious contrast.Also,because i watched next action star,i am certain that Corrine and Sean did their own stunts,which were performed very well.I am looking forward to another movie by the pair,as they make a great team,or perhaps a sequel to bet your life-possibly called 'making it big in the big apple',it could this time be about Carmen..Bet your life is EXCELLENT! | 1 |
train_22023 | The plot of this film is not strong at all, lots of holes. If you approach it as a car movie its not bad, lots of great cars in this one. The reason I like it is because I am from the area where this was filmed. I get the most enjoyment looking at the recognizable places in St. Cloud MN and seeing how the town has changed since 89. Its an interesting historical piece for us locals. Seems like whenever a film is made here everyone wants some relationship to it. It is impossible to find a copy in any of the local video stores as they were all stolen once it came out on VHS. Had to get a copy from Japan on Ebay I find it interesting how the path of the drag race is all over town. I didn't know the director was from St.Cloud. | 0 |
train_23740 | Unashamedly ambitious sci-fi from Kerry Conran, for whom this is clearly a labour of love. Unfortunately it's just not that good. It all starts well enough - with an epic but restrained score, a mixture of Lucas and Hitchcock style editing and the glossy cinematography of a Spielberg. The movie also references many pulp sci-fi novels, serials and films as diverse as The Day The Earth Stood Still, Superman, Metropolis, Planet Of The Apes, The Iron Giant, Star Wars and The Spy Who Loved Me. The film however, fails to be as good as any one of those for several reasons: the main being that it's such a labour of love, so concerned with throwing everything at the screen and creating a brave new world, Conran actually forgets about making a movie. There is little to no tension, atmosphere or magic on offer here despite aerial battles, dinosaurs and race-against-time set-pieces. Even the noir elements fall flat. This is a broad way of looking at things though - those elements mainly fail because nothing feels at all real and is so obviously fake - the green-screen just looks like a video game half the time and it's obvious the actors have been pasted on afterwards. The actors don't get to do much either - Jude Law is wooden, Gwyneth Paltrow is annoying and stupid, Angelina Jolie is wasted - and it's all because of an awful script - the sort that has to explain nearly everything. It is a decent experience and some might get a nostalgia feel but ultimately this is a pointless step into the world of yesterday. Nice ending though. | 0 |
train_11292 | I saw this movie once as a kid on the late-late show and fell in love with it.It took 30+ years, but I recently did find it on DVD - it wasn't cheap, either - in a catalog that specialized in war movies. We watched it last night for the first time. The audio was good, however it was grainy and had the trailers between reels. Even so, it was better than I remembered it. I was also impressed at how true it was to the play.The catalog is around here someplace. If you're sincere in finding it, fire me a missive and I'll see if I can get you the info. cartwrightbride@yahoo.com | 1 |
train_21645 | Let me first state that I enjoy watching "bad" movies. It's funny how some of these films leave more of a lasting impression than the truly superb ones. This film is bad in a disturbingly malicious way. This vehicle for Sam Mraovich's delusional ego doesn't just border on talentless ineptitude, it has redefined the very meaning of the words. This should forever be the barometer for bad movies. Sort of the Mendoza line for film. Mr. Mraovich writes, directs, and stars as blunt object Arthur Sailes battling scorned wives and the Christian forces of evil as he and his partner Ben "dead behind the eyes" Sheets struggle for marital equality. As a libertarian I believe gays should have a right to get married. Ben & Arthur do more harm to that cause than an army of homophobes. The portrayal of all things Christian are so ugly and ham-fisted, trademark Mraovich, that you can't possibly take any of them seriously. Arthur's brother Victor, the bible toting Jesus freak, is so horribly over-the-top evil/effeminately gay that you have to wonder how he was cast in this role. That's because Sam "multitasking" Mraovich was also casting director. The worst of it all is Sam Mraovich himself. When you think leading man do the words pasty, balding, and chubby come to mind? Sam also delivers lines like domino's pizza, cold and usually wrong. The final tally: you suck at writing, directing, acting and casting. That's the Ed Wood quadruple crown. Congratulations you horrible little man. | 0 |
train_4535 | The first 50 minutes of this movie were quite boring. It focused on the personal problems Doyle had, including his sick wife, death threats by fans, a pushy publisher and feelings of guilt concerning his mentally ill father. Even though these subjects had an important impact on Doyle's life, I was more curious about the birth of Sherlock Holmes. The last 40 minutes were excellent. We finally got a look inside Doyle head, how he created Holmes and why he had to 'kill' Holmes. The actors are excellent. Including the intriguing Selden played by Tim McInnerny, Arthur Conan Doyle, a compelling role played by Douglas Henshall and Brian Cox as the 'role model' for Sherlock Holmes, Dr. Bell. The locations are good, especially for a TV movie and the camera work is nice. If the first 50 minutes were as good the the last 40 minutes this would have been a small masterpiece. | 1 |
train_18613 | I screamed my head off because seeing this movie was my first movie going experience ever at some 13 months old. I remember it being incredibly bloody and it made me angry. I watched it again on tv a few years ago. Big mistake -- the acting is wooden, the plot non-existent and the movie lacks merit unless 23 year-old T & A is what gets you going... 0/**** | 0 |
train_10285 | David Mamet wrote the screenplay and made his directorial debut with `House of Games,' a character study fraught with psychological overtones, in which a psychiatrist is lured into the dark world of the confidence game. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) has a successful practice and has written a best-selling novel, 'Driven.' Still, she is somewhat discontented with her own personal life; there's an emptiness she can neither define nor resolve, and it primes her vulnerability. When a patient, Billy Hahn (Steven Goldstein), confides to her during a session that he owes big money to some gamblers, and that they're going to kill him if he doesn't pay, she decides to intervene on his behalf. This takes her to the `House of Games,' a seedy little dive where she meets Mike (Joe Mantegna), a charismatic con-man who wastes no time before enticing her into his world. Instead of the `twenty-five large' that Billy claimed he owed, Mike shows her his book, and it turns out to be eight hundred dollars. And Mike agrees to wipe the slate clean, if she'll agree to do him one simple favor, which involves a card game he has going on in the back room. In the middle of a big hand, Mike is going to leave the room for a few minutes; while he is gone, her job is to watch for the `tell' of one of the other players. By this time, not only Margaret, but the audience, as well, is hooked. The dialogue, and Mamet's unique style and the precise cadence with which his actors deliver their lines, is mesmerizing. As Mike leads Margaret through his compelling, surreal realm of existence, and introduces her to the intricacies of the con game, we are swept right along with her. From that first memorable encounter, when he demonstrates what a `tell' is and how it works, to the lessons of the `short con,' to the stunning climax of this film, Mamet keeps the con going with an urgency that is relentless. And nothing is what it seems. In the end, Margaret learns some hard lessons about life and human nature, and about herself. She changes; and whether or not it's for the better is open to speculation. Mantegna is absolutely riveting in this film; he lends every nuance possible to a complex character who must be able to lead you willingly into the shadows, and does. Crouse also turns in an outstanding performance here; you feel the rigid, up-tight turmoil roiling beneath that calm, self-assured exterior, and when her experiences with Mike induce the change in her, she makes you feel how deeply it has penetrated. She makes you believe that she is capable of what she does, and makes you understand it, as well. The dynamic supporting cast includes Mike Nussbaum (Joey), Lilia Skala (Dr. Littauer), J.T. Walsh (The Businessman), Ricky Jay (George) and William H. Macy (Sergeant Moran). `House of Games' is the quintessential Mamet; he's written and directed a number of high-caliber plays and films since, and will no doubt grace us with more in the future. But this film will be the one that defines him; and you can go to the dictionary and look it up. You'll find it under `Perfection.' This is one great movie you do not want to miss. I rate this one 10/10. | 1 |
train_15970 | As with most of Ben Affleck's movies, the comedy is dry and story is predictable. That is if you want to call this a story. Many points were left connected with no thought at all. I want to thank the director for not explaining the points better. I say that because, that would mean the torture would have lasted longer. As for any of Ben Affleck's failures, this one is no exception and is survivable only by the other actors. Even then, the acting for the most part was contrived and was not believable. The trip down memory lane with actors I have not seen in years was not worth the price of admission. All thought it should be told, they too are quickly joining the ranks of the "has-been". My choice was to wait for my car to be fixed or watch this movie. I made the wrong decision. All in all I would give it a one laugh ... mainly because that is all I got out of it. | 0 |
train_9357 | In New York, the family man dentist Alan Johnson (Don Cheadle) meets his former roommate and friend Charlie Fineman (Adam Sandler) by chance on the street. Charlie became a lonely and deranged man after the loss of his wife and three daughters in the tragic September 11th while Alan has problems to discuss his innermost feelings with his wife. Alan reties his friendship with Charlie and they become close to each other. Alan tries to fix Charlie's life, sending him to the psychologist Angela Oakhurst (Liv Tyler), but Charlie has an aggressive reaction to the treatment and is send to court."Reign Over Me" is a good drama about loss, friendship, family and loneliness. The September 11th is irrelevant to the plot; it could be a car accident, a fire or any other tragedy, as well as the sexual harassment of Donna Remar, played by the gorgeous Saffron Burrows, to Alan. But the family drama works, supported by the great performances of Adam Sandler and Don Cheadle. Liv Tyler is quite impossible to be recognized, I do not know whether she is using excessive make-up to look older, but her face is weird. My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): "Reine Sobre Mim" ("Reign Over Me") | 1 |
train_11383 | This is a fine musical with a timeless score by one of my favorite composers (Gershwin) and a nice 'Parisien' atmosphere which gives the movie a lot of charm, but in terms of a story.. well it's not really there. Or at least, not very well worked out. The acting is also not so smooth by Caron. But I liked some of the dialogues, I liked the scene at the Seine, I liked the character played by Levant, the colors; and the dancing of course, which is quite magnificent.A 7.5 - 8 seems on the dot to me. | 1 |
train_2229 | I've read some terrible things about this film, so I was prepared for the worst. "Confusing. Muddled. Horribly structured." While there may be merit to some of these accusations, this film was nowhere near as horrific as your average DVD programmer. In fact, it actually had aspirations. It attempted something beyond the typical monster/slasher nonsense. And by god, there are some interesting things going on.Ms. Barbeau is a miracle to behold. She carries the film squarely on her shoulders.This is not to say that it's a masterpiece. UNHOLY ultimately collapses under the weight of its own ambition. There are just too many (unexplained) subplots trying to coexist. And the plot loopholes created by time travel are never really addressed: for example, if Hope knows that her mother is evil and that she will ultimately kill her brother, then why doesn't she just kill Ma in the film's very first sequence? Seems like it would have beat the hell out of traveling into the future to do it.Still, I give UNHOLY points for trying. A little ambition is not a bad thing. | 1 |
train_5341 | CAROL'S JOURNEY is a pleasure to watch for so many reasons. The acting of Clara Lago is simply amazing for someone so young, and she is one of those special actors who can say say much with facial expressions. Director Imanol Urbibe presents a tight and controlled film with no break in continuity, thereby propelling the plot at a steady pace with just enough suspense to keep one wondering what the nest scene will bring. The screenplay of Angel Garcia Roldan is story telling at its best, which, it seems, if the major purpose for films after all. The plot is unpredictable, yet the events as they unravel are completely logical. Perhaps the best feature of this film if to tell a story of the Spanish Civil War as it affected the people. It was a major event of the 20th century, yet hardly any Americans know of it. In fact, in 40 years of university teaching, I averaged about one student a semester who had even heard of it, much less any who could say anything comprehensive about it--and the overwhelming number of students were merit scholars, all of which speaks to the enormous amount of censorship in American education. So, in one way, this film is a good way to begin a study of that event, keeping in mind that when one thread is pulled a great deal of history is unraveled. The appreciation of this film is, therefore, in direct relation to the amount of one's knowledge. To view this film as another coming of age movie is the miss the movie completely. The Left Elbow Index considers seven aspects of film-- acting, production sets, character development, plot, dialogue, film continuity, and artistry--on a scale for 10 for very good, 5 for average, and 1 for needs help. CAROL'S JOURNEY is above average on all counts, excepting dialogue which is rated as average. The LEI average for this film is 9.3, raised to a 10 when equated to the IMDb scale. I highly recommend this film for all ages. | 1 |
train_1014 | It's amazing that from a good, though not wonderful, film made back in the early Nineties, a whole franchise can grow. 'Stargate; SG1' is, without a doubt, a worthy addition to the science fiction genre and has the right to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with 'Star Trek' as the kings of sci-fi.Following on from the 1994 feature film 'Stargate', this series sees Stargate command (a military/science organisation) figuring out that the stargate system can be used to travel to various planets across the galaxy and beyond and the military sets up a number of teams to explore. SG1 is one such team, headed by military veteran Colonel Jack O'Neill, and includes archaeologist Doctor Daniel Jackson, military scientist Captain Samantha Carter and alien Teal'c, who has betrayed his overlord leaders in the hopes of one day freeing his people. Earth quickly makes an enemy of the Goa'uld, a parasitic race who use humans as hosts and think themselves equal to gods.The top-notch cast have much to be congratulated for in bringing this show to life. Richard Dean Anderson is perfect as the cynical and sarcastic O'Neill, who can shift from boyish to deadly in the blink of an eye. Michael Shanks, as Daniel, brings heart and an will of steel to the character, who has grown from wide-eyed innocence to darker and more hard-bitten as the show has progressed. Amanda Tapping, as Carter, has perfected the balance between depicting her character's femininity without comprising the fact she is a strong, intelligent military scientist. Christopher Judge is excellent as the aloof Teal'c, who is able to depict the character's emotions with subtlety. And Don S Davis is perfect as the esteemed General Hammond who leads with a good balance of fairness and firmness.Almost all the episodes are are involving and portrayed with intelligence, reflecting on moral dilemmas as well as the friction between military interests and civilian beliefs (often shown through arguments between O'Neill and Jackson). Guest characters are solidly depicted and story arcs are handled in a manner that doesn't bore viewers. SG1 also excels in humour, from O'Neill's wisecracks to episodes that are just wacky and odd! SG1 has everything from action to drama to romance to suspense to the heartbreaking scenes of death. It isn't just an excellent sci-fi show but is an excellent show, overall. | 1 |
train_3440 | Love Rosario Dawson, think she's one of the finest actresses of the modern era.Descent seems to be more about self-empowerment than anything else. It's the consistent undertone in everything in the film. The dialog is flat, the characters seemingly intentionally bland and one sided. The only consistency is the representation of self-empowerment in the characters and Rosario's journey from self empowerment to loss of empowerment and back again.Pitching this as a rape classic isn't appropriate, and that's probably why so many people don't enjoy the film. The standard 'rape' audience wouldn't particularly like this film, and maybe that's the point? The film asks more questions than it answers, and it does confront it's target audience, whether they like it or not. There's a compelling relationship between the characters and the target audience and while the film doesn't slap the audience across the face with self-righteous audacity it does engage the viewer for what may or may not be, all the wrong reasons.Descent is a good film which IMHO is severely under-rated. | 1 |
train_5669 | In her first nonaquatic role, Esther Williams plays a school teacher who's the victim of sexual assault. She gives a fine performance, proving she could be highly effective out of the swimming pool. As the detective out to solve the case, George Nader gives perhaps his finest performance. And he is so handsome it hurts! John Saxon is the student under suspicion, and although he gets impressive billing in the credits, it's Edward Andrews as his overly-protective father who is the standout.Bathed in glorious Technicolor, The Unguarded Moment is irresistible hokum and at times compelling drama. | 1 |
train_24456 | This movie stinks. I don't think I have ever seen a movie so strung up on shock value. The plot was relatively interesting, but the dialog was super flat and the acting was bland. This could have been an a good movie. I think it just relied on it's grotesque visuals. I can usually handle graphic scenes and human taboos, but it felt like Miike shot it for the sake of shooting it. Just one poorly executed film. There just isn't anything to be entertained by watching this film unless you are fascinated by exhausting yourself with explicit scenes of incest, pedophilia, necrophilia, rape, self milking, parental and sibling abuse, and fecal dispersement. I think I just sold the film to many of you, but I meant it when i said this stinks. He has succeeded in other films, but I think you'd be better off watching someone pooping. | 0 |
train_20637 | Stewart Moss stars as a scientist who is on a working trip with his wife, and one gets the feeling that he was picked for this role for his ability to roll his eyes back in his head...imagine the auditions for this.."can you...no, that's not quite it, thank you, next!". Anyway, he's bitten by a bat, and then, he's either changing into some kind of bat creature and killing people or....he's not. For no one else sees his strange transformations, but he himself seems to think that he's changing because his wedding ring pops off when his hands turn into claws, etc. To its credit the movie does kind of hold back on whether he's just nuts or whether he's actually transforming into something until almost the very end. This has some good locations & sort of a decent atmosphere at times but unfortunately none of that can make up for the somewhat lame story and the wonderfully bad acting. Kind of fun in a "so bad it's good" way, but leans more towards just plain bad. 4 out of 10. | 0 |
train_3855 | The morbid Catholic writer Gerard Reve (Jeroen Krabbé) that is homosexual, alcoholic and has frequent visions of death is invited to give a lecture in the literature club of Vlissingen. While in the railway station in Amsterdam, he feels a non-corresponded attraction to a handsome man that embarks in another train. Gerard is introduced to the treasurer of the club and beautician Christine Halsslag (Renée Soutendijk), who is a wealthy widow that owns the beauty shop Sphinx, and they have one night stand. On the next morning, Gerard sees the picture of Christine's boyfriend Herman (Thom Hoffman) and he recognizes him as the man he saw in the train station. He suggests her to bring Herman to her house to spend a couple of days together, but with the secret intention of seducing the man. Christine travels to Köln to bring her boyfriend and Gerard stays alone in her house. He drinks whiskey and snoops her safe, finding three film reels with names of men; he decides to watch the footages and discover that Christine had married the three guys and all of them died in tragic accidents. Later Gerard believes Christine is a witch and question whether Herman or him will be her doomed fourth husband. The ambiguous "The Vierde Man" is another magnificent feature of Paul Verhoeven in his Dutch phase. The story is supported by an excellent screenplay that uses Catholic symbols to build the tension associated to smart dialogs; magnificent performance of Jeroen Krabbé in the role of a disturbed alcoholic writer; and stunning cinematography. The inconclusive resolution is open to interpretation like in many European movies that explore the common sense and intelligence of the viewers. There are mediocre directors that use front nudity of men to promote their films; however, Paul Verhoeven uses the nudity of Gerard Reve as part of the plot and never aggressive or seeking out sensationalism. Last but not the least; the androgynous beauty of the sexy Renée Soutendijk perfectly fits to her role of a woman that attracts a gay writer. My vote is eight.Title (Brazil): "O 4o Homem" ("The 4th Man") | 1 |
train_23318 | Having read the novel before seeing this film, I was enormously disappointed by the wooden acting and the arrogance of the producers in their blatant disregard of the plot. I feel this film in no way reflects the brilliance of Bronte's work, and rather gave the impression of a shallow love story. In the condensing of the film to a short 2hours, the film lost many of the key features which make the book comprehendable and progressional, thus resulting in a somewhat jumpy plot with little grounding. There is no build up to the romance between Rochester and Jane Eyre, so this appears rather abrupt and unfounded since the two characters have such infrequent interaction you cannot help but imagine their 'love' is superficial. This is such an injustice to Bronte's novel;you are given no impression of Jane's quirky cheek and boldness which attracts Rochester to her, and his arrogance which attracts Jane to him.Despite to poor scripting, I think that a few of the characters were portrayed very astutely, namely Mrs Fairfax and Grace Poole, however overall the production was poor. Given a better scripting, perhaps the film would have been more successful. See "Jane Eyre" (1970) with Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton for an outstanding production. | 0 |
train_22957 | What can I say? I'm a secret fan of 'over the top' action and horror films. Especially when it comes with a lot of lots of humour and innuendo, but I'm not a fan of Snake on a Plane.There are three potential draws to this film: The comedy of the situation; The horror; and The novelty of hundreds of snakes being of a plane. Firstly, this film isn't written as a tongue-in-cheek horror or a comedy, and there are only 1 or 2 points in the film where you'll smile to yourself. If you want to get the feel of the film, the trailer genuinely represents the movie, a horror.Secondly, if you're expecting a film full of action and shocks, you won't be disappointed. It doesn't stand out above other movies, but it always keeps your attention.Thirdly, Although the novelty of Snakes of a Plane doesn't wear off, but you'll leave the cinema thinking "what was all the fuss about".I know this movie has a high rating, but it doesn't add up. A) Many of the reviews where written before the film was released and, B) The breakdown of user ratings has a lot less variation than normal 77% of people rating the movie 10/10, with only 7% of people giving it 9/10 - Why such an enormous gap? | 0 |
train_15817 | i like Jane Austin novels. I love Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility books and movies, and I'm half way through Mansfield Park. But i couldn't stand Emma. I gave up on the book after 2 chapters, and by the end of the movie i couldn't care less about Emma. She didn't seem to change at all. Maybe it was Paltrows acting (which as excellent in Se7en) or my lack of interest for the movie. Dunno. The costumes are nice, but the dancing was clumsy compared to Pride and Prejudice dancing by Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle.I gave it a 2 basically for the fact Knightly is bloody gorgeous, and although it as a rather patchy performance for Ewan McGregor, i liked his singing. | 0 |
train_1945 | This final Voyager episode begins 23 years in the future. Voyager has made it back home. In the many years it took to return tho, the Vulcan Tuvoks' mind has been destroyed. He carried a disease they were too late getting home to cure.Captain Janeway comes across aliens who have time travel technology. She realizes, there's a Warp Conduit in the Delta Quadrant that could bring Voyager home immediately - if she could go back in time and notify Voyager. There's one problem. The Conduit is deep inside Borg Space.Janeway visits Tuvok. He's like a child. He scribbles tho, obsessed, working on math problems or movie reviews or something, he's convinced are important somehow. In the institution, Tuvok cries, asking for 'Janeway' to please, please come back to him.Janeway decides to commandeer a federation shuttle and equip it with weapons technology 20 years ahead of the Borg, in the hopes of going back in time and using this new technology to guide Voyager to the Warp Conduit.When she goes back in time and links up with Voyager, Janeway meets her younger self. The two captains disagree, arguing about the plan. The real-captain visits Tuvok asking him if it's true he has a brain disorder. Tuvok admits it's true, but it can't be cured by the facilities on the ship so he's kept it to himself.The young Captain agrees to the older Captains' plan. To increase their chances of success the older Janeway plans to distract the Borg with her shuttle craft. The Borg actually capture Janeway and her shuttle. The Borg Queen personally assimilates Captain Janeway. But Janeway's expected this! the Borg Queen has assimilated a virus into herself that kills her. With the Borg Queen dead Voyager makes it thru the Warp Conduit back to federation space. | 1 |
train_5652 | I love the series! Many of the stereotypes portraying Southerrners as hicks are very apparent, but such people do exist all too frequently. The portrayal of Southern government rings all too true as well, but the sympathetic characters reminds one of the many good things about the South as well. Some things never change, and we see the "good old boys" every day! There is a Lucas Buck in every Southern town who has only to make a phone call to make things happen, and the storybook "po' white trash" are all too familiar. Aside from the supernatural elements, everything else could very well happen in the modern South! I somehow think Trinity, SC must have been in Barnwell County! | 1 |
train_17066 | SPOILER WARNING: There are some minor spoilers in this review. Don't read it beyond the first paragraph if you plan on seeing the film.The Disney Channel currently has a policy to make loads of movies and show one a month on the cable channel. Most of these are mediocre and drab, having a few good elements but still being a disappointment (`Phantom of the Megaplex,' `Stepsister From Planet Weird,' `Zenon: Girl of the 21st Century'). Every once in a great while, they make something really, really great (`Genius,' `The Other Me'). But once in a while The Disney Channel makes a huge mistake, and gives us a real stinker. This month (December 2000) The Disney Channel featured `The Ultimate Christmas Present,' which I thought was terrible due to poor writing and worse acting. Apparently, `The Brainiacs.com' was rushed out a few days before Christmas to get a jump on the holiday, because the plot has to do with toys. They even paid for a feature in the TV Guide, so I thought it must be better than the norm. I was in for a complete shock. Only Disney's `Model Behaviour' has been worse than this.The plot was more far-fetched than normal. I usually let that slide, but here it just goes too far. Matthew Tyler gets very sick of his widowed father spending most of his time at work. His father owns a small toy factory that has taken out large loans at a scrupulous bank to stay afloat. Time and time again, his father has to skip out on the plans he makes with his son and daughter. Matthew decides that the only way he can spend time with his dad is if he becomes the boss and orders him to stay home. He gets a hair-brained idea to create a website where kids all around the world can find and send him a dollar to invest in a computer chip that his sister is inventing. That whole concept is full of fallacies. When kids send in millions of dollars, Matthew opens his own company's bank account and buys up most of his dad's business's stock. He is the secret boss, but he doesn't reveal this to his dad, but instead presents himself at board meetings as a cartoon image through a computer. That image itself is so complex (and ridiculous) that it isn't possible for someone to create it at home, much less someone who comes across as stupid as Matthew. To make a long plot short, Matthew orders his dad to spend more time having fun and doing stuff with his kids, but a federal agent shows up inquiring about Matthew's company, as it is fraudulent.There's so much wrong here. As mentioned, the stuff they do here is impossible even for true geniuses, which these kids are not. The website, the cartoon image, the computer chip, even the stuff they are being taught in school, are far too advanced for these kids. The acting by most of the cast, especially Kevin Kilner, is terrible. Some familiar faces are wasted. Dom DeLuise plays the evil bank owner, but his part is a throwaway. He has one good scene with Alexandra Paul (who shows she has the ability to act) in which he explains his motives, but nothing more. And Rich Little is wasted in a small role as a judge. There's even some offensive and uncalled for anti-Russian jokes. But the greatest atrocities are the hard-hammered themes. These themes show up in many of The Disney Channel's films, but never before have these ultra-conservative messages been pounded so strongly. The typical `overworking parent' idea is really pushed hard, and after delivering it inappropriately in `The Ultimate Christmas Present,' seeing it again sours my mood. Family relations are important, but Disney must stop this endless preaching, because working is important to maintaining a workable family, too. Except for cancelling activities thanks to work, the father didn't come across as that bad, but I found it offensive when the grandmother told him `I don't like what I see.' Just as bad is the preaching of the idea that all single parents MUST marry if they want to raise their kids right. Enter Alexandra Paul, whose character, while important to the plot, is there solely to be the love interest for the father. This offensiveness only proves that the Disney brain trust lacks the brains to avoid scraping from the bottom of the Disney script barrel. Instead of letting this movie teach your kids how to commit serious fraud, wait for the next Disney Channel movie. It has to be better than this. Zantara's score: 1 out of 10. | 0 |
train_24048 | Jeez, only in the 70's... Antonio Margheriti brings us this quirky hybrid of spaghetti western and kung fu flick evolving around a treasure-hunt. The spices of this trashy co-production between Shaw Brothers and an Italian one-off company include humorous storytelling, off-the-wall happenings and some very tame T&A. Extra campy moments are being served by Lee Van Cleef's obnoxious wig, leather-clad bible-thumping psycho gunman Yancey Hobbitt (loveably hammed up by Julian Ugarte, the man who should've done way more obscure European genre productions than he did), wanna-be-witty dialogue, hilarious background music and completely laughable sound effects accompanying various little events (especially every jump made by Lo Lieh).While this little piece of action falls fare and square into the Turkey Territory, it's great to see Van Cleef and Lo Lieh on the same screen, and you can't deny the charisma of this duo. Don't expect too much, and you'll get plenty out of it.This is my truth. What is yours? | 0 |
train_24887 | Lipstick is another glossy movie failure.I am trying to think of one good thing that I could say about the movie, and I am having trouble coming up with something.I guess the red dress that Margaux Hemingway was wearing in the end of the movie was the best part.The writing and the script was not the worst that I have ever encountered,but it could have been a lot better. Lipstick was very pleasing to the eye to view.The sets were very glossy and nice to look at.The cast was okay. I felt like Anne Bancroft's character was the only feasible character in the entire movie.It was sad to see Chris Sarandon waste his time on this one. | 0 |
train_3467 | I still wonder why I watched this movie. Admittedly, before I viewed this film, I knew practicly nothing about the beatles. I didn't even know all their names! All I knew was that they had a ton of fans, they had some albums that some people claim to be the greatest ever, they broke up, John married Yoko Ono, and John was murdered.Also, VH1 isn't even my favorite music station, MTV is. Still, for some reason or another I decided to watch it, not expecting much. Surprisingly, I enjoyed it very much! The dialogue was written and handled very well with the occasion of a slight accent mess up. This is very important, because John and Paul talking is pretty much the whole film, allthough they are taken outside to explore more possibilities, and to keep you watching. Jared Harris and Adien Quinn give good performaces,overall.The ending was also very smart. I enjoyed how the movie gets you excited about the SNL performace, and then slaps you over the head and makes you realize that it would be better if they just let it go, and end it on a good note. My favorite moment is probably the touching rooftop scene.Overall, I recommend this film to almost everyone. It is a very good way of settling your curiosity of what could have happened if 6 years after the break up Paul just showed up on John's doorstep. Which is probably the main reason of my viewing this film, settling my curiosity on who the beatles really were and what could have happened to them after the breakup. | 1 |
train_12510 | This film had a lot of promise, and the plot was relatively interesting, however the actors, director and editors seriously let this film down.I feel bad for the writers, it could have been good. The acting is wooden, very few of the characters are believable.Who ever edited this clearly just learnt some new edit techniques and wanted to splash them all over the film. There are lots of quick 'flashy' edits in almost every scene, which are clearly meant to be symbolic but just end up as annoying.I wanted to like this film and expected there to be a decent resolution to the breakdown of equilibrium but alas no, it left me feeling like I'd wasted my time and the film makers had wasted their money. | 0 |
train_23101 | This is the official sequel to the '92 sci-fi action thriller. In the original, Van Damme was among several dead Vietnam War vets revived to be the perfect soldiers (Unisols). In this one, it's, I guess, about a dozen years later, since Van Damme has a daughter about that age. Now he's working with the government in a classified installation to train the latest Unisols - codenamed Unisol 2500, for some reason. As usual, something goes wrong: the on-site super-computer (named Seth - like the snake in "King Cobra" the same year) goes power-crazy, takes command of the Unisols, and even downloads its computer brain into a new super-Unisol body (Jai White). We're lookin' at the next step in evolution, folks! Most of Van Damme's fights are with one particularly mean Unisol (pro wrestler Goldberg) who just keeps on comin': drop him off a building - no good; run him down with a truck - no go! Shoot him, burn him - forgetaboutit! Much of the humor is traced to how Van Damme is now outmoded and out-classed(he's even going grey around the edges). But, though he takes a lickin', he keeps on kickin'! Most sequels of this sort are pretty lame - pale imitations of the originals, and while this one is certainly no stroke of genius, it manages to be consistently entertaining, especially if you're a pro-wrestling fan. | 0 |
train_13516 | The movie itself is not too bad; many comments have pointed out the obvious flaws of the script, but it is watchable. What really gives me the creeps though is that people like Justin Timberlake even get cast for movies, and on top of that for movies like this one. I have to admit I had never heard the man's name before watching this, but the very instant he appeared I was just plain annoyed. The voice is crap, the face is a bad rip-off of Legolas, the posture is horrible, and he cannot even properly coordinate all three of them. Said to say, I was delighted when he got jumped after leaving the disco, because I was hoping from then on it would be Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey only. Too bad I was wrong. These two and also LL Cool J give a very decent performance, and they are the main reason I give this a 4. I see many upcoming movies with the little Timberlake cast... and cannot believe it. | 0 |
train_17895 | Kenneth Branagh attempts to turn William Shakspeare's obscure, rarely-produced comedy into a 1930s-era musical, with the result being both bad Shakespeare and bad musical comedy as the actors are rarely adept at one or the other of the two styles and in some cases flounder badly in both. Particularly painful is Nathan Lane, who seems to be under the impression that he is absolutely hysterical as Costard but is badly mistaken, and Alicia Silverstone who handles the Shakespearean language with all the authority of a teenaged Valley Girl who is reading the script aloud in her middle school English class.The musical numbers are staged with the expertise of a high school production of "Dames at Sea," leaving the cast looking awkward and amateurish while singing and dancing, with the lone exception being Adrian Lester who proves himself a splendid song and dance man. The only other saving grace of the film are Natascha McElhone and Emily Mortimer's contribution as eye candy, but they have given far better performances than in this film and you'd be wise to check out some of the other titles in their filmographies and gives this witless mess a pass. | 0 |
train_2784 | Nagra comes from conservative Indian family that isn't exactly into girls playing competitive soccer. But our attractive young star CAN play some serious soccer. Rhys-Meyers coaches Nagra and encourages her to perform, while Knightley is supportive teammate and friend. When sis' wedding is scheduled for the same day as the ultimate soccer match, what's a girl to do? Similar in its own unique way to BFGW as Nagra tries to push the envelope on traditional family ways. Here it's dad (well-played by Kher) who can see both sides of the issue. Docked an entire point for a hokey late sexual preference non-crisis, if they needed filler they could have gone elsewhere. Nice final wrap up to the whole deal. | 1 |
train_6937 | This stirring western spins the tale of the famous rifle of the early west that was coveted by one and all. James Stewart is the cowboy who wins the prized Winchester in a shootout, only to lose it in a robbery. The story details Stewart's pursuit of the rifle and a certain man through the film. The rifle changes hands time after time, as though the owner is fated to lose it through violence. The picture has plenty of action and suspense as Stewart closes in on his quarry. A great cast supports Stewart here, namely Stephen McNally, Dan Duryea, Millard Mitchell, John McIntire and Jay C. Flippen. Shelley Winters seems miscast here and the purpose of her role is rather obscure. Tony Curtis and Rock Hudson, teen heartthrobs in later years, have brief but good roles. | 1 |
train_14961 | There are probably more people afraid of the dentist than of, let's say, little monsters or scary looking dolls. Which makes it a perfect subject for a horror movie, really.Dr. Feinstone (Corbin Bernsen) has been a successful dentist for several years now, but when he catches his wife cheating on him with the poolguy he snaps, and he brings his anger and frustration to his work. Well, give a mad dentist a drill and a mouth, and you can probably guess what happens next...As I said, brilliant idea but not delivered as well as it should. In particular the ending is a huge let down. Last note: watch for Mark Ruffalo (You Can Count On Me, Eternal Sunshine...) in this one.5/10. | 0 |
train_587 | One of the things about the film that warmed my heart strings was that dry fly fishing was a major part of the scene. I have occasionally carried out my times of dry fly fishing, having tied my own flies, and being accompanied by my brother and my father we spend a day on one river or another seeking to tempt the ever elusive Brown Trout to rise and take the fly that has been offered to them.When we had occasions like this any differences between us disappeared and any of the pressures of the world melted away to be replaced by the glory of being absorbed in the activity and the surroundings of the place we were in.This was one of the amazing things that was portrayed to me in the film as the minister and his two sons, Norman and Pauly carried out the ritual. For there is something ritualistic about fly fishing as there is something ritualistic about so many pastimes. You can't just start casting your fishing line and hope for the best. You have to attune yourself to the place you are in, you have to scan the surface of the water considering how it is flowing and where the best point might be to place your fly and, depending on your skill level, you might even get your fly to land there long enough for a fish to take note of it and strike. The 'Art of Fly-fishing' was directed and represented so well that they themselves can be classified as artists.The title for the film could not be more aptly chosen, for the river did in fact run through the life of father and two sons. This film however spreads itself broader than the family and community in Montana, by the the Blackfoot river, where the film is played out. It has the capacity to draw you in, to enthrall you, to capture you, as the history of the family, community and period is unfolded. The Story told is not just a family history, but a history of Life. What may be classified as a 'River of Life' | 1 |
train_4377 | The early to mid 90s were a high point, in my opinion, for the historical drama. Last of the Mohicans, Braveheart, Rob Roy - all portrayed a distinctive passion and intensity in their respective time periods.Rob Roy was a unique and intriguing taste of a time and place rarely represented by film. It really has everything - interesting story, great acting, remarkable dialog, and breathtaking scenery. I was particularly impressed by the apparently genuine dialog. I can imagine this is how early 18th century people spoke and behaved.Something else that surprised me was the vulgarity expressed by the characters. I found it to be more repulsive and shocking, albeit often more subtle, than most found in films set in modern times. The movie had a very racy and sexually charged edge to it that was unique and most likely very realistic in the context of the era.The pace was very tight, with hardly a dull moment. There was much intrigue and political subplots that complicated things a bit, but yet did not detract from the main storyline.The action was also very well done and gripping. Something that I will forever find remarkable is that during the highlight action piece in the film, there is no soundtrack whatsoever. It makes for a very tense, exciting sequence, since we have no musical cue as to the direction and resolution of the scene.Rob Roy will always remain high on my list of favorite films. I would recommend it to all. | 1 |
train_1067 | Like a lot of series pilots, Dark Angel's opener shows a mixture of great potential and a slight problem finding its own feet. Not that this is unusual in any way, but there is a feeling that it could have worked better if the story was tightened and focused a little more. In today's world where something has to catch on instantly or face cancellation, the series did itself a bit of a disservice by not coming out at least halfway focused, with all guns blazing.The ninety-minute pilot really feels like two episodes glued together, and both episodes have a problem with focus. In the first half, we are introduced to Max and filled in on what drives her. We also get a few interesting routines with Max using her abilities to win bets, interacting with a PI, or sorting out co-workers' domestic problems. The problem here is that this is nothing out of the ordinary for any human being with a normal set of genes, on television or otherwise.It's when we hit the second half that we get a story with a purpose and focus. Throughout the two halves, Max finds herself the focus of attention from a pirate journalist who feels it is mission in life to save the world by exposing one dirty dealer at a time. In the second half, the repercussions catch up with him, and Max reluctantly cleans up the resulting mess. This sets up the premise for the entire rest of the series, and it works, but it doesn't quite click if you get my meaning. It's like most of the pieces are there, but a couple that make a complete image have been left out. Perhaps they get filled in with later episodes, but that's beside the point. The fact is that the contents of this episode could easily have been told with twenty-eight less minutes.The last of the negatives is that a lot of the support cast are totally unendearing. Original Cindy in particular is an annoyance, and I doubt that changed during the next twenty episodes. While the acting isn't as bad as daytime soap, it isn't of such quality that I'd commend it. Jessica Alba is not the worst actor in the world, but she does come up short in terms of being convincing when the story needs it least.The good news is that the premise and the production values are all top-notch. In fact, this series was considered quite expensive to produce, and it is quite unfortunate that it was cancelled in order to be replaced by another show that didn't last a whole season. Especially when there was ample time for both shows - they could have simply cancelled one of the pieces of disingenious garbage they flog under the banner of reality TV. The fact is that we need more shows like Dark Angel, where imagination rather than overhype, are used to draw the attention.In all, I gave the Dark Angel pilot a seven out of ten. It never rises above the level of throwaway television, and it never got a chance to live up to the potential it shows within its own running time. But the potential is there, and that's often all that matters where pilots are concerned. | 1 |
train_13430 | Some kids are hiking in the mountains, and one of them goes into a large tunnel and discovers some old mummified gladiator. He puts on the gladiator's helmet and spends the rest of the movie killing all the other hikers.This thing is just so utterly senseless it's maddening. Here's a short list of things that don't make any sense:1) A guy and a girl are in their tent and they think they hear something outside. The guy goes out to investigate and finds another hiker outside. Then he hears his girlfriend scream so they head back to the tent - arriving the next morning?!? He was only 50 feet away!2) These two dunderheads then hear another girl scream (What, 100 feet away?), but don't investigate because they're afraid they'll get lost.3) Another guy and a girl are walking around, and in about their 10th scene together the girl informs the guy that due to the circumstances, protocol no longer requires him to address her as professor. I mean, what the...? First off, that's just a really stupid thing to say, secondly he never called her professor in the first nine scenes they were in together.4) A wounded girl attacks Demonicus and he stops her, telling her that part of his gladiator training taught him how to wound without killing. Um, yeah, we kinda noticed she's wounded and not dead because she's up and walking around. But, thanks for that tidbit of information.5) One girl is tied up in Demonicus' lair, and when someone attempts to free her, she instead instructs this person to go and get help. Um, look, idiot, if she set you free, which would take about 5 seconds, there would be no need to get help.And it just goes on and on. The whole middle part of the movie is spent with the two idiots getting lost in the woods, then they fight, then they pitch a tent and ignore the screams of their friends, then they wander around some more. It's just so damned boring and pointless that I turned the DVD off halfway through. None of these characters are sympathetic, especially the ones that get the majority of the screen time. Demonicus himself made me laugh out loud every time I saw him - he looks like a kid in a Halloween costume, scrunching his face up to look evil. He runs, or should I say scampers around like he's gay. The special effects are comedic, the acting is for the most part awful, and nothing makes any sense.Overall, maybe this concept could have produced an enjoyably campy film if they put some more time and effort into it, getting rid of the ludicrous dialogue, creating characters with actual likable personalities, having some sort of logical flow to the action, and maybe even making Demonicus a female character in a sexy gladiator outfit. But no, instead we get this senseless pile of nonsense that will bore you to death. | 0 |
train_2664 | Even though The Shining is over a quarter of a century old, I challenge anyone to not get freaked out by Jack Nicholson's descent into madness. This is a rare example of something so unique that no one has been able to rip it off; instead it has been referenced time and again in pop culture. The twins, the elevator of blood, RedRum, the crazy nonsense "writing"... this should be seen, if for nothing else, to understand all the allusions to it in daily life. The film is simultaneously scary, suspenseful, beautiful, and psychologically intriguing. It has the classic mystery of Hitchcock and the terror of a modern thriller. And it has what horror movies usually lack: a great script. | 1 |
train_4066 | Lapyuta (Castle in the Sky), more than any of Hayao Miyazaki's movies, brings the joy of storytelling to the audience. It is the kind of movie that makes one feel like a kid again; it's just magical. It's a crime that it took this long for it to be released in the states, but now that it's here check it out! And stick with the original language; the dub changed my impressions of the characters somewhat, which is something that should be avoided at all costs in a translation of a movie (or book, whatever.)I give it a ten/ten. | 1 |
train_18119 | Let me start by saying that I totally agree with the basic thesis of the film, that there probably was no historical Jesus and Christianity is a sham. With that said, this movie does a pretty poor job of proving that thesis. It makes good arguments--the gap between Jesus' theoretical life and the writing of the Gospels, filled only by the writings of Paul, who doesn't indicate a historical Jesus--and then utterly fails to convincingly argue them. It makes broad statements without presenting the evidence the statements are based on, and it resolutely ignores counter-arguments presented by Christian apologists. The intellectual dishonesty, emotional manipulation, and lack of serious argument are obvious, and stunning. The only Christians we hear from in the film are the head of the filmmaker's old school--who comes off like a reasonable, rational person attempting to deal with a twit with a chip on his shoulder--and various Christians encountered apparently at random in a parking lot. I'm sorry, but revealing that average Christians don't know much about their religion isn't exactly damning evidence of Christianity's fraudulence. You may as well claim that Jay Leno has disproved the existence of Michael Dukakis on his Jay-Walking segment. The interviews with experts can be interesting, but the film is filled with too much of, let's be honest, the filmmaker just being snarky. Within the first five minutes the film has already conflated Jerry Falwell with Charles Manson and the writers of the Left Behind series with the Branch Davidians. And by the end, the film becomes so self-centered that there's no rational argument left, just an angry former Christian lashing out at the people and places he blames for his messed up childhood. Y'know, maybe that movie could've been interesting, but it's misplaced in a documentary about the historicity of Jesus, and it's so self-congratulatory as to deflate any sympathy. This is a Michael Moore film without the humor or the film-making acumen combined with a Richard Dawkins book without the wit or the intellectual rigor. Skip it. | 0 |
train_1635 | back in my high school days in Salina Kansas, they filmed something called "The Brave Young Men Of Weinberg" locally, and the film crews were rather prominent for weeks. eventually, we learned that the film was "Up The Academy", and was a bit ummm, "lower brow" than we had been led to believe. I had to see it, since I was there, and the local audiences seemed less than pleased at the showing. I was 17, and thought it was a rather artless attempt at a post "Animal house" type of comedy, right down to the fart jokes. Watched it many times since, and my opinion has mellowed a bit. it's dumb, but at times it catches a bit of the "mad" magazine humor, at least as well as most "Mad TV". Ron Liebman might hate it, but he is nearly perfect, and unforgettable. For me, my favorite moment would have been a brief scene on Santa Fe avenue, where I had parked my car, while I was buying some guitar strings. Too bad my Pinto's brief appearance, usually seems to get cut for TV. haven't seen the new DVD, but if my old pinto is visible, they've got a sale. | 1 |
train_21272 | There's nothing new for me to say: 4 hours of people dying over and over in the same hill. The cast was stellar, but unfortunately the producer/director/editor/God goofed. He should have eaten humble pie (if not for his own sake then for the men who died in Kargil), hired one of these brilliant Bollywood directors, hired a real scriptwriter, hired a real editor, hired a musician that wasn't related to him in some way (and who seemed to have listened to some bad version of "Apocalypse Now" on some cheap Indian drug), hired a real professional crew, thrown away all the fireworks and told a real story. Unfortunately he, like the bigwigs of the Indian Army, made decisions that were terrible for his actors, and terrible for his audience. We all died over and over. Please don't do that again, Sir! Sushma Kathmandu, Nepalps: Next time an Indian director decides to glorify the Gurkha regiment, I suggest he hire more than one Nepali to represent the team. Surely there are plenty of Nepali men working in Bombay--last count was 40,000 to half a million. | 0 |
train_19492 | The plot is about a female nurse, named Anna, is caught in the middle of a world-wide chaos as flesh-eating zombies begin rising up and taking over the world and attacking the living. She escapes into the streets and is rescued by a black police officer. So far, so good! I usually enjoy horror movies, but this piece of film doesn't deserve to be called horror. It's not even thrilling, just ridiculous.Even "the Flintstones" or "Kukla, Fran and Ollie" will give you more excitement. It's like watching a bunch of bloodthirsty drunkards not being able to get into a shopping mall to by more liquor. The heroes who has locked themselves in, inside the shopping-mall to avoid being eaten by the hoodlums outside, are not better either. Even though they doesn't seem to be drunk, they give the impression of being mentally disabled. Save your money instead of spending it on this! | 0 |
train_300 | With various Bogdanoviches and Gazzaras scattered throughout cast and crew "They all laughed" is very much a family affair.If you add the fact that B.Gazzara and Miss A.Hepburn had a brief but passionate affair in an earlier picture it has the air of almost a private movie made for the enjoyment of the participants and that the entertainment of a wider audience merely an ancillary consideration.If this all smacks of smug "in - joke" self gratification you will be pleased to hear that Mr Bogdanovich sails well clear of that particular hazard and delivers a sweet and rather innocent "I love N.Y." paean that is also an altar at which we can worship the ethereal beauty of the late Miss Hepburn. Make no mistake this is her picture.Mr Gazzara concedes it to her most self - effacingly in all their scenes together. The plot - a detective agency gets involved too personally in its clients' affairs - is of minimal importance,it is the performance of the two leads that dominates the movie. Mr Bogdanovich's triumph is in the way his camera seems to love his actors,from "Targets" onwards.There is a glow about every one of his films that only special artists can coax from an inanimate piece of optical equipment.Miss Hepburn in particular benefits from this love. Extra insights into his work can be obtained from reading the published collections of his essays on stars and directors,principally "Who the hell's in it?", recently remaindered in UK bookstores. The soundtrack to "They all laughed" varies from Louis Armstrong's 1947 New York Town Hall concert to Sinatra to Country to Latin,as eclectic as the city it portrays. Mr B,s "Golden Boy" image was sure to tarnish,for such is the nature of the movie business,but it is equally sure one day to be restored,and when that day comes "They all laughed" will be recognised for the fine work that it is. | 1 |
train_193 | Sunday July 16, 8:00pm The Castro, San Francisco"As a Southern colonel your make-up is very Indiana"The yammering gossips of Hollywood have managed to sling more than a little mud in Marion Davies direction over the years. That she had fame handed to her and was undeserving, is often speculated. Considering the mawkish dramas she was so often pushed into, this criticism would seem to have some validity. As a comedienne however, her star shone very brightly. Left to pursue a career in light comedy and slapstick she might have rivaled Mabel Normand. One of her better outings was King Vidor's Show People (1928), which survives and is so well known largely because MGM filled it with star cameos. This happy coincidence inadvertently saved what is surely among the best work of its two stars, Davies and that notorious Joe College wise-cracker, William Haines. Rumor has it Show People was loosely based on the life of Gloria Swanson, who began in Sennett comedies and rose to grand drama (And don't think she didn't spend the rest of her life reminding everyone!) with von Stroheim, Walsh and DeMille. Coincidentally, the comedy studios used in this film are the original digs Keystone had abandoned the year before (Think of who worked there!).Colonel Marmaduke Oldfish Pepper (Dell Henderson) drives his daughter Peggy (Davies) from Georgia to Hollywood to star in the movies. These two country hicks are unsuspecting fodder for incorrigible Billy Boone (Haines), " a custard pie artist
" who descends on their cafeteria table in an outrageously funny entrance (watch for the bit with the noodle), and then helps Peggy land a part in his next picture. What she thinks is high drama turns out to be screwball, but a job is a job and Billy convinces her " . . all the stars have to take it on the chin ". At the preview, Billy and Peggy bump into
.. Charlie Chaplin, who asks for her autograph! She pushes the little fellow aside and a horrified Billy grabs the book and makes her sign. Chaplin climbs in his car and Billy tells Peggy who shes just snubbed, so naturally, she faints. It's so very funny, considering Davies character isn't supposed to recognize this guy! Peggy soon moves on to work at the High Art Studios, changes her name to 'Patricia Pepoire' and leaves poor Billy behind. Davies does a wonderful send-up of a serious actress, with all the prerequisite fluttering eyelashes and quivering lips. Vidor throws in a parade of stars eating lunch in a long tracking shot (and they're all sitting shoulder to shoulder, facing the camera!) that includes Polly Moran (Who's also sensationally funny playing Davies' maid), Louella Parsons (one of the friendly vampires), Estelle Taylor, Claire Windsor Aileen Pringle, the comedy duo of Karl Dane (with his arm in a sling) and George K. Arthur (pretending he's stealing the silverware), Leatrice Joy (amused by Arthur's antics), Renee Adoree, Rod (eating and smoking) La Rocque, Mae Murray, John (in a robe) Gilbert (who also appears driving through the MGM gates early in the picture), Norma (eeeww!) Talmadge (looking bitchy and aloof as usual) and Patricia dressed like Marie Antoinette, sandwiched between Douglas Fairbanks (as he does an amusing trick) and William S. Hart (protecting her from Doug). Billy runs into the High Art crew on location when the comedy troupe disrupts their filming, with predictably nutty results. Vidor even works himself into the final scene as the director of Peggy's current production. Also worth noting are Harry Gribbon as the comedy director doing a great caricature of Eddie Sedgwick, Sidney Bracy as the dramatic director who can't get Peggy to cry for her screen test and then can't stop her once she does, and Paul Ralli as Andre, her dramatic love interest and a hilarious phony. When her character tries to 'act' its as though Davies is poking fun at all the awful dramas she'd been forced into and she's brilliant doing it.While it's true Show People is a hokey satire of the 'good ole days' ten years hence, it remains a highly entertaining example of quality work from MGM, Irving Thalberg, and their tremendous wealth of assembled talent. What a shame so much has been lost. There are also far too many examples of great films like The Patsy (1928), Vidor and Davies' hugely successful comedy from earlier that same year, languishing in vaults when they could be seen and enjoyed. | 1 |
train_17507 | There is no reason to see this movie. A good plot idea is handled very badly. In the middle of the movie everything changes and from there on nothing makes much sense. The reason for the killings are not made clear. The acting is awful. Nick Stahl obviously needs a better director. He was excellent in In the Bedroom, but here he is terrible. Amber Benson from Buffy, has to change her character someday. Even those of you who enjoy gratuitous sex and violence will be disappointed. Even though the movie was 80 minutes, which is too short for a good movie (but too long for this one),there are no deleted scenes in the DVD which means they never bothered to fill in the missing parts to the characters.Don't spend the time on this one. | 0 |
train_3438 | The film was very outstanding despite the NC-17 rating and disturbing scenes. In reality things like this do happen and that is why this movie shows a lot of it. It all starts with Maya (Rosario Dawson in superb performance) whose recently started attending college has everything going well for her. She meets Jared (Chad Faust in a terrific performance) at a frat party who turns out to be a real gentleman and sweet. He invites her out to dinner. They look at the stars from a bridge and they end going to his apartment. They talk and takes her to the basement were they become flirtatious with each other. She tries to put an end to it, but he rapes her. This incident scars her. She goes to a club meets a bartender/DJ Adrian (greatfully played by Marcus Patrick) who sees that she is getting to drunk and helps before she goes to far. They strike a friendship. He also does drugs and Maya starts using as well. In other words introduces her to a different world. She starts going back to school and working as TA (Teaching Assistant) and spots Jared as one of the students. While the students are taking a Midterm, she catches Jared cheating. Jared tries to smooth talk Maya, but she still has the upper hand decides to invite him to her place. Will history repeat itself? Or Will Maya have a surprise for Jared? You watch the movie. Excellent A. Rosario Dawson portrays the role with focus and endurance. Chad Faust does not like he can be a rapist, but he does a terrific job as Jared. Marcus Patrick is very brilliant the man who saves Maya and coaches her into a new world. This film deserves an award. | 1 |
train_24116 | I did not enjoy the film, Joshua, at all. Perhaps it is because I saw another, much better similar film titled Orphan 2 days prior but perhaps it's really just because this film was not very good. I am going with the ladder. Sure, the plot of an evil child is not exactly original but that doesn't mean the film could not succeed. It could have been suspenseful and entertaining and chilling but instead it was slow building, boring, uneventful and really didn't leave me thinking anything more than 'that wasn't very good' when it was all over.At the end, Joshua's motivations are revealed. I won't give that away but the reality is that he didn't really accomplish his goals since despite Vera Farmiga as his mother, Abby, disappearing about 3/4th through the movie, all arrows point to her returning home soon. She was committed to a mental institution because she was losing her mind but then Joshua's Father/Her husband was accused of tampering with her medication which tells the audience that the institution realized that she was indeed not mentally ill but rather was being dosed medically. So.. shouldn't she be coming home soon? Won't Joshua have failed? Won't his Mother be living with him and his sister and possibly his Father soon? I question the Father since his future is left open ended.At the end of the day, I didn't care about the characters. The evil demon child Joshua wasn't really scary. The storyline moved slowly and when it picked up it was still boring. Suspense fell flat every single time. When it was over I couldn't believe I had sat through the whole thing. 4/10 just because the acting was good from the parents especially Vera Farmiga as the Mother but if you want to see a movie about an evil 'child' go see Orphan. Now that's a movie that took an unoriginal concept and created a brilliant movie. | 0 |
train_22667 | This TV movie goes to show that bad films do exist. The only reason I saw this was it was covered on a KTMA MST3K. It's Super Bowl at the Superdome in New Orleans. However, no football is played whatsoever and we see the behind the scenes look at basically nothing. With the many stars in this film, it made no difference. I really don't know why I watched this. | 0 |
train_7265 | Good story. Good script. Good casting. Good acting. Good directing. Good art direction. Good photography. Good sound. Good editing. Good everything. Put it all together and you end up with good entertainment.The shame of it is that there aren't nearly enough films of this caliber being made these days. We may count ourselves lucky that writers/directors like John Hughes are occasionally able to make their creative voices heard.Whenever I notice that I'm watching a film for the third or fourth time and still find it thoroughly satisfying I have to conclude that something about that film is right. | 1 |
train_607 | Maybe I loved this movie so much in part because I've been feeling down in the dumps and it's such a lovely little fairytale. Whatever the reason, I thought it was pitch perfect. Great, intelligent story, beautiful effects, excellent acting (especially De Niro, who is awesome). This movie made me happier than I've been for a while.It is a very funny and clever movie. The running joke of the kingdom's history of prince savagery and the aftermath, the way indulging in magic effects the witch and dozens of smart little touches all kept me enthralled. That's much of what makes it so good; it's an elaborate, special-effects-laden movie with more story than most fairytale movies, yet there is an incredible attention to small things.I feel like just going ahead and watching it all over again. | 1 |
train_9377 | A surprise thriller with more twists and double crosses than a doodle pad. A great cast mixing it up with an intriguing plot overseen by a Twin Peaks-ish influence in director Dahl. Nicholas Cage is a very underrated actor and shows a great portrayal of a man in a bind looking for the right thing to do. J.T. Walsh (RIP to a great actor) is always a wonderful villain, as is Dennis Hopper. It's such a shame he never made to a higher profile in the biz. I'm sure he has his followers, though. In all, this is a great film that shows you that you don't need big bangs or a commercial soundtrack to be an entertaining film. | 1 |
train_8506 | . . .but it was on a UHF channel and the reception was very fuzzy. I'd really like to own the movie since the reason I watched it in the first place is because I am a bus driver and at the time I saw this movie, I was driving that model bus. It was only (during his murder trial some 15 years later) that I remember vaguely that OJ was one of the stars in it. I only recall that he was the driver and of the bus' being shot up and driven wildly. I've been looking all over for this movie to no avail, since viewing it in the mid-80s. I liked the movie, I don't usually watch thrillers, but after reading the summary in the TV guide, and viewing its beginning (although fuzzy) I stayed for the whole thing. | 1 |
train_21034 | Like all the Taviani Brothers films, this one looks great, but it is rotten to the core with false romanticism, and coincidences heap upon each other in some facsimile of a "story". In actuality, this is really just a sentimentally cheap tear jerker posing as an intellectually distinguished art film. | 0 |
train_11050 | Well, magic works in mysterious ways. This movie about 4 prisoners, trying to escape with the help of spells, written by another prisoner centuries ago was a superb occult thriller with a surprising end and lots of suspense. Even if it had something of a theater-play (almost everything happens in the cell) it never got boring and it was acted very well. In the tradition of "Cube" you felt trapped with the Characters and even if they were criminal, you developed some sympathy with some of them, only to change your mind by the twists the story takes. Some happenings catched you off guard and there was always a touch of insanity in the air. Altogether intense and entertaining and as I didn't expect anything (a friend rented it), it was a positive surprise! | 1 |
train_21966 | This movie was physically painful to sit through, maybe because (like many people my age, and younger) I grew up with Dr. Seuss and loved his books - funny, clever, whimsical and subversive at the same time. "The Cat in the Hat" sucks all of the interest and spark out of the story, and Mike Myer's performance as the Cat is mostly bewildering. Why the Borscht Belt accent, the unfunny patter, the inappropriate jokes, the charmless costume? I had to go back and re-read the books to see the real problem: the books are SIMPLE. This movie is OVERBLOWN and way, way too long.You don't expect every kids' movie to be Toy Story or The Iron Giant, but this one set a new low. How could Mike Myers need the money? | 0 |
train_11286 | I recommend watching this film with your significant other if you're planning a romantic evening with him/her. The chemistry between Johnny Weissmuller and Maureen O'Sullivan as Tarzan and Jane is so steamy it could fog up your screen.After the original film, we begin to see how Tarzan and Jane have adapted to the jungle and to each other. Jane's skimpy jungle wear and Tarzan's protest when Jane covers up for their visitors illuminates that they are not just romantically, but also quite sexually in love.One's imagination can supplement the constant touching and love talk between Tarzan & Jane to portray how much Jane is actually teaching Tarzan about love emotionally, romantically and sexually. And Jane's student is not only embracing but also thriving with his previously untapped sexuality.The skin show in this film is off the charts. In addition to Jane's two-piece sexy midriff, leg, and hip baring costume, she also has an underwater nude swim with Tarzan. (although it is not O'Sullivan, but Olympic swimmer Josephine McKim who doubles for her in this scene) Weissmuller, also reveals a tremendous body and perfect pectorals in his barely there loincloth. The ladies will delight when Weissmuller emerges from the water after his lengthy fight with the giant crocodile and sounds his yell - with his water soaked loincloth practically falling off his hips.It's a shame that the over-protective censors toned down the adult nature of the Tarzan films after this entry. Although the Weissmuller Tarzan films would still prosper in the years to come, they would rarely approach the sex appeal of this movie. | 1 |
train_5811 | Only a 9/10 from me, a perfect ten would have been if there was more of a plot to the movie, but nevertheless Moonwalker to this day remains a fun fest of music, dance and entertainment. Beginning with the montage of video clips from Jackson's long career, it reminds the viewer of just why he is often regarded as 'The King of Pop'. From his hit 'I want you back' to 'We are the World' the multi-award winning charity record for the benefit of Africa. Following this a short movie of sorts, although lacklustre in an Oscar winning script, nonetheless provides a fantastic and entertaining drama for the audience. Ending with a perfect (sexy!) rendition of 'Come Together'. Something the whole family can watch and enjoy. | 1 |
train_2927 | This video is so hilariously funny, it makes everything elseby Eddie Murphy seem very disappointing (even Beverly Hills Cop and The Nutty Professor, which just goes to show you how good this really is). To be honest, I don't think that I've everlaughed at something as much as this, including Naked Gun and the rarely seen Bargearse. This show is amazing, although it must be said that it is certainly filled with the word beginning with F that is four letters long (plus its extended version beginning with M) but it didn't bother me. See it, the funniest thing I've ever seen and probably the funniest you ever have too. | 1 |
train_16027 | had to see this cos it looked like a great scary premise- prisoners finding magic book,oo err! claustrophobic terror ensues, etc. but there didn't seem to be a story to go along with the great idea. rather than chilling/physcological horror, it relied on effects out in the open- fire and OTT body horror- , which didn't scare at all if your over 12. The logic at the end is ridiculous, with characters being killed off for nothing other than bodycount. waste of good characters- which were the best thing about this film.obviously low budget, which doesn't spoil it, the film really goes nowhere, and- icant believe im going to say this- it needs a Hollywood remake. you simply loose interest in this version. definitely not in the same league as other french films coming out in the last few years like crimson rivers which were at least watchable/entertaining, malefique isn't watchable to the end to be honest. and i bet you can guess the ending before you have watched the film. really really disappointing- impossible to recommend. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.