id stringlengths 7 11 | text stringlengths 52 10.2k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|---|
train_1338 | The year 2000 had been a bad year for indian films due to lack of quality and imagination from film directors. Other than Mohabbatein and Kaho Naa Pyaar Hai nothing stood out. CCCC had lot of contraversy due to the financing of the film and this with not really knowing what the film is about has generated good publicity and advanced ticket sales for the film around India and Abroad. The only information given was that it was a suspense thriller. The film is now been released in 2001 and the film was surprisingly quite good. The main plot is to do with surrogacy and is well handled. Salman And Preiti give a good performance where Salman doesn't actually take is shirt off at all..must be special effects!! Rani plays Salmans wife but it is slightly a less demanding role compared with Preiti who plays Prostitute who eventually becomes the surrogate mother. The three main leads confirm, after Har Di Jo Pyar Karega, they have a solid on screen and off screen chemistry(apparently). Salman Khan who is excellent plays a serious role in the film as a successful business man and is a pity is being exploited as a wannabe comedian in his other films as he is quite underrated in the Mumbai film industry partly due to the films he chooses. Rani's Character does not know Preiti is a prostitute until the end...this kept from her and the rest of the family...the rest you should find out as it will ruin the film if i told you. The songs are all picturised well especially dekhne walon and the main title song. The other supporting actors do a minimal but fine effort as Salmans loving family. Abbas Mastan has produced a hit and handled the film subject tactfully..I say go and watch it or rent it whatever you prefer! | 1 |
train_18020 | This movie was portrayed in the trailer as a comedy. It is an extreme tragedy. It left me sick to my stomach. I hated it. I think if they want to make a movie like this than they should be man enough to reflect the true intentions of the movie in the trailer. I would not have seen this movie if I would have known. I think the trailer should reflect the theme and intentions of a movie. I am tired of it. I really wanted to have a fun comedy and I am extremely disappointed. It has been several days now and I still have a bad taste in my mouth from this movie. I have never been more disappointed in a movie, nor have I ever written a comment on a bad movie. I really think that true deception was involved in this trailer because if they showed the true intention of the movie, no one would have seen it. | 0 |
train_24404 | The End of Violence and certainly the Million Dollar hotel hinted at the idea the Wenders has lost his vision, his ability to tell compelling stories through a map of the moving picture. The Land of Plenty seals the coffin, I'm afraid, by being a vastly unimaginative, obviously sentimental and cliché'd film. The characters are entirely flat and stereotyped, the writing, plot and direction are amateurish, at best. For the first time in quite a while, I was impatient for the film to end so I could get on with my life. The war-torn delirium of the uncle, the patriotic abstract gazing at the sky at the conclusion...it all just struck me as being so simple and pathetic, hardly the work of a filmmaker who once made some compelling magic on screen. What happened? The days of experimentation, perceptive writing and interesting filming possibilities are long behind him, I'm afraid. Let's hope he finds his inspiration again... At the Toronto film festival, which is where I saw the film, Wenders was there to introduce it. Completely lacking in humility, he offered us the following: "I hope...no, wait...I KNOW you're going to enjoy the next two hours." I'm afraid he couldn't be more wrong... | 0 |
train_6041 | This is one to watch a few times. The excellent writing shows they had to have lived this story or know someone whom did because they nailed it. Freebird made me relive and laugh at my misspent youth. The title was a Great choice. Great film, setting, story, soundtrack and characters. It's a biker flick but would be a shame to pigeon hole it that way. Funny to the bone, kinda like Trailer Park Boys in the U.K. If you've never seen TPB, make a point to if you like this film. You will thank me. I hope to see more of these characters in other films. Sequel? Could be done. There's a whole lot more of the world I would like to see through their eyes. | 1 |
train_10755 | Great documentary about the lives of NY firefighters during the worst terrorist attack of all time.. That reason alone is why this should be a must see collectors item.. What shocked me was not only the attacks, but the"High Fat Diet" and physical appearance of some of these firefighters. I think a lot of Doctors would agree with me that,in the physical shape they were in, some of these firefighters would NOT of made it to the 79th floor carrying over 60 lbs of gear. Having said that i now have a greater respect for firefighters and i realize becoming a firefighter is a life altering job. The French have a history of making great documentary's and that is what this is, a Great Documentary..... | 1 |
train_9872 | Once again the two bickering professors must join together to save the lost world. The five members of the first expedition return (see The Lost World, 1992, for a list of actors). A man seeking oil brings a drilling crew to the plateau. Instead of striking oil they tap an underground volcano which threatens all life in the Lost World. The oil crew clash with the native people and the scientific expedition. Although the situation looks hopeless.... (I'm not going to tell you the ending). | 1 |
train_10542 | Tweaked a little bit, 'Nothing' could be a children's film. It's a very clever concept, touches upon some interesting metaphysical themes, and goes against pretty much every Hollywood convention you can think of...what goes against everything more than, literally, "nothing"? Nothing is the story of two friends who wish the world away when everything goes wrong with their lives. All that's left is what they don't hate, and a big empty white space. It's hard to focus a story on just two actors for the majority of your film, especially without any cuts to anything going on outside the plot. It focuses on pretty much one subject, but that's prime Vincenzo Natali territory. If you've seen 'Cube', you know already that he tends to like that type of situation. The "nothing" in this movie is apparently infinite space, but Natali somehow manages to make it somewhat claustrophobic, if only because there's literally nothing else, and nowhere else to go. The actors sell it, although you can tell these guys are friends anyway. Two actors from 'Cube' return here (Worth and Kazan), but are entirely different characters. They change throughout the story, and while they're not the strongest actors in the world, they're at least believable.The reason I say this could be a children's film under the right tweaks, is because aside from a few f-bombs and a somewhat unnecessary bloody dream sequence, the whimsical and often silly feel of this movie could very much be digested easily by kids. So I find it an odd choice that the writers decided to add some crass language and a small amount of gore, especially considering there isn't very much of it. This could've gotten a PG rating easily had they simply cut a few things out and changed a little dialogue. There is very little objectionable about this film, but just enough to keep parents from wanting their kids to see it. I only say that's a shame because not because I support censorship, but because that may have been the only thing preventing this movie from having wider exposure.At any rate, this is a reasonably entertaining film, albeit with a few dragged-out scenes. But for literally being about nothing, and focused entirely on two characters and their interactions with absolutely nothing, they do a surprisingly good job for an independent film. | 1 |
train_19223 | Charlotte's deadly beauty and lethal kicks make the movie cooler than it'd be otherwise.The story is so poor and Charlotte's character dies in such a foolish way, that you wonder if this's the ending they had thought of for this movie. I wish somebody could tell that an alternative ending exists, but I fear it doesn't. As for the rest of the cst, well I'd say they simply didn't act very well; although the blame should be put on the poor script.This movie reminds me of Rush Hour 2 where Zhang Ziyi dies in absurd way, since she had been the only one who had stolen the show during the whole movie. I could give this movie 2/5 | 0 |
train_2012 | This is one of my all-time favorites. Great music and some funny bits. I laugh every time at Millie, the maid pretending to be a débutante, holding her dainty hankie while chatting, and mindlessly polishing furniture with it as she chats. I just never can get past her French accent never being a problem as they try to pass her off as the boss's daughter.Seeing a teenage Mel Torme and the very young Frank Sinatra singing is such a treat. My mom saw Frank Sinatra at a theater about the same time this movie came out. She said they couldn't clear the "bobby-soxers" out between movies (in those days you didn't have to leave between showings). This movie shows you how attractive and appealing the young Frank was and allows you to appreciate his early talent as well. And Victor Borge gets in a bit of his routine in, which is a bonus. This is a fun movie with a sweet, simple storyline. Very enjoyable. | 1 |
train_16542 | This film is beautiful to look at, but is like watching really bad experimental theater. The plot (if there was one) doesn't make any sense. But it is very "artistic". Lots of shots of half-dressed actors wrestling and looking deep into each other's eyes. Lots of arty shots through windows and with people out of frame. Mumbling and people wandering wistfully. Lingering close-ups of faces and bodies. By the time you get to the threesome on the roof with the cat, you'll be ready to throw a bottle of KY at the screen.It is supposed to be about a father and son's relationship, but you will just be wishing the two of them would just f*$& each other and get it over with. If you have always wanted to see bad Russian gay porn without any money shots, your wish has been granted. | 0 |
train_18355 | The film released at the start of 2000 alongwith MELA both disasters So sad to start a millennium with such nonsenseThe film seems to suit 70's but looks like an unintentional comedy for 2000Anywayz some classic gems from the film: Paresh Rawal I don't understand to laugh at his role or cry Reason: He goes searching his mother in the village worst part is when he realises a secret of Anil he keeps the secret in his stomach which becomes big and makes him look pregnant I remember in my childhood my teacher told me the same joke Urrf!!!! as a child i laughed at it that time but here?The whole film is a joke can't explain We have Anil in a dual role(One older and younger) and Rekha playing the older's wife and Raveena the youngers We also have reject Harish while Shakti playing the son of Aruna Irani who both fight on who has the worst wigDirection is outdated Music is badAnil tries hard looks too old in the younger role and too young in the older role yet good effort Rekha is adequate, Raveena too is okay Harish is bad Shakti Kapoor is terrible Aruna Irani is as usual Rajnikant is okay in a cameo | 0 |
train_16057 | Seriously, I can easily stomach a lot of on screen blood, gore and repulsiveness, but what really makes this film disturbing & uncomfortable to watch is how the doctor character keeps on rambling about the physical damage done to raped women. He, John Cassavetes of "Rosemary's Baby", talks about ruptured uterus, dry intercourse and massive loads of reddish (?) sperm like they are the most common little ailments in the world of medicine. That being said, "Incubus" is an ultimately STRANGE horror effort. It isn't necessarily awful although it isn't very good, neither but just plain weird. The muddled & incoherent script initially revolves on the hunt for a rapist-killer of flesh and blood (even though the title clearly suggests the involvement of a supernatural creature) and it never seems to stop introducing new characters. None of these characters, especially not the main ones, come across as sympathetic and for some never-explained reason they all seem to keep dark secrets. The aforementioned doctor has an odd interpretation of daughter-love and continuously behaves like he's a suspect himself, the town's sheriff (John Ireland) appears to be in a constant state of drunkenness and doesn't even seem to care about who keeps raping & killing the women in his district, the female reporter is even too weird for words and the Galens (an old witch and her grandson) are just plain spooky. All together they desperately try to solve the mystery of whom or what exactly is destroying the towns' women reproducing organs. The sequences building up towards the rapes & murders are admirably atmospheric and the vile acts themselves are bloody and unsettling. Basically these are very positive factors in a horror film, but the narrative structure is too incoherent and the characters are too unsympathetic for "Incubus" to be a really good film. Also, there are quite a few tedious parts to struggle yourself through (like footage of a Bruce Dickinson concert!) and the usually very reliable John Hough's direction is nearly unnoticeable. The final shot is effectively nightmarish, though. For me personally, "Incubus" was a bit of a disappointment, but there are still several enough reasons to recommend this odd piece of early 80's horror to open-minded genre fanatics. | 0 |
train_21500 | When I rented this I was hoping for what "Reign of Fire" did not deliver: a clash between modern technology and mythic beasts.Instead I got a standard "monster hunts stupid people in remote building" flick, with bad script, bad music, bad effects, bad plot, bad acting. Bad, bad, bad.Only reason why I did give it a 2 was that in theory there could exist worse movies. In theory..... | 0 |
train_9778 | This is a trio of tales, "Shakti", "Devi", and "Kali", about an experimental commune (or some such thing) called the Taylor-Eriksson group, which took people on journeys inside themselves and into the realm of the unknown, and left a bit of damage here and there, I'd say. Many years later some of that damage is still lurking and waiting for the right moment to show itself. Shakti tells the tale of a woman whose husband died mysteriously, in fact, he was torn apart, and the suspect was a man that may not have existed. Seems this woman is able to project some inner demon, or so finds out the sister of the man who was killed when she attempts to talk to this woman while posing as a reporter. Devi tells the tale of a young man who wants to "jump out of his skin". He's a skinhead, a speed freak, and is sent to see a psychiatrist who just happens to be a former member of this commune, which results in the good doctor helping the young man to realize his desire. This is probably the best of the three segments. Kali tells the tale of a healer, who attempts to "heal" this woman who was a part of this commune and lets loose some kind of demon that has lived in this woman, but one wonders if he did it or if SHE loosed it because it could not survive in her any longer. All three of these tales are pretty creepy and suspenseful because you're never really sure what to expect, and the premise and the settings are so unlike those of conventional horror films that it adds to the strangeness. This has a sort of low-budget look and feel to it but it also manages to conjure up a pretty creepy atmosphere throughout, much to its credit. I watched this with my mouth hanging open a good portion of the time and when the real scares (and gore) came it hit pretty hard. I found this to be a very interesting and disturbing film and liked it a lot. A good little find, this one, I'd give it 8 out of 10. | 1 |
train_23353 | ...and you can look at that statement in different ways, by the way. First of all, it's a mess because of all the gruesome and extremely violent scenes. Your wildest imagination doesn't even come close to some of the explicitly shown scenes here. Entire parts of this movie are just plain sick, disgusting, offensive, brutal and they bring you close to puking your guts out. Now, I love horror movies and I am very 'pro-violence', but I do think that it has to lead somewhere !! Is that too much to ask ? Cradle of Fear is just a series of utterly sick and twisted thoughts. The "movie" contains out of four separate chapters connected by a wraparound story. This results in endless showing of torture, murder and sickness only to find out that the victims have something in common. Not very informative, if you ask me. And yet - it has to be said - the basic plot idea surely HAS potential. It's about a cannibalistic hypnotist who made a deal with the devil himself to avenge himself and cause misery and death to everyone who was involved in his trial. Personally, I think that is an interesting topic, so they should have focused on that a little more instead of wanting to create the most disgusting movie ever.Secondly, the whole production of this movie was a mess. They didn't have much of a budget and they spent it all on fake blood and guts...Tons of it !! The acting performances are a joke and some of the worst I've ever seen. Any other special effects besides the make-up looks very amateurish ( Like that attempt to a realistic car crash, for example ). There's no tension or atmosphere to detect anywhere...not even an attempt to build up one.Cradle of Fear is a failure and a missed opportunity to say the least. With the presence of death-metal icon Danni Filth ( from the band Cradle of filth..get the link ? ) this movie is obviously only meant for the eyes of twisted teenagers who try to be controversial. Troubled girls and boys who take pleasure in worrying their parents by watching crap like this. And then people keep complaining that the amount of suicides and juvenile delinquency is increasing...Bah. I can imagine that this movie can cause a lot of damage when you're easily influenced or dispose of an unstable mind. For every self-respecting horror fan, this movie is an insult. | 0 |
train_19145 | This guy has no idea of cinema. Okay, it seems he made a few interestig theater shows in his youth, and about two acceptable movies that had success more of political reasons cause they tricked the communist censorship. This all is very good, but look carefully: HE DOES NOT KNOW HIS JOB! The scenes are unbalanced, without proper start and and, with a disordered content and full of emptiness. He has nothing to say about the subject, so he over-licitates with violence, nakedness and gutter language. How is it possible to keep alive such a rotten corpse who never understood anything of cinematographic profession and art? Why don't they let him succumb in piece? | 0 |
train_4121 | This one tends to get slighted by a lot of critics and Kurosawa fans, but I thought it was wonderful. It's an episodic multi-character study of Tokyo's poorest, who live in a city literally made from garbage. Though it looks like an A-Bomb just hit, the film has a sort of serene beauty thanks to the glorious use of Technicolor. The title comes from the sound made by the insane young man who drives an imaginary trolley through the slum. All the characters were wonderful and all the stories engrossing, but perhaps the most tragic concerns the man and his young son who live in an abandoned car. When not searching for food, they spend their spare time using their imagination to build their dream house. An emotionally moving and beautiful film. | 1 |
train_10335 | The only reason I give this movie an 8 out of 10 is because there are few movies, in my opinion, that are perfect. This little B picture is a taut story, well told. I've always been intrigued by Alexander Knox, but have seen him very few movies. Here he plays Wilhelm Grimm, a sad little man who turns into a monster. He betrays everything and everybody without an ounce of remorse. The performance is one of the most chilling performances I've ever seen. Since World War 2, actors who played Nazis or other evil types in films have occasionally been nominated for Oscars. I imagine that since this was made during the war, the Academy felt like honoring a performance like this would have been like honoring evil. But Knox puts in that kind of performance--a man so bitter and consumed by guilt that he thinks nothing of making others suffer. I still can't get over it.Marsha Hunt, who usually plays the filbert gibbet or social butterfly, is cast against type in probably the best performance I've ever seen her give, too. Maybe not Oscar worthy, but the best of her career. Nothing against her; I have enjoyed her in those "slight" roles she often played. But here she proves she up to the task of heavier drama.If you like human drama stories, or stories about the fates of those who suffered at the hands of the Nazis, I highly recommend this fine little film. | 1 |
train_24839 | This comedy has some tolerably funny stuff in it, surrounded by a lot of unfunny stuff. Just about every scene involving the servants of the castle and their silly antics is a waste of time. And the plotting is so sloppy that it makes you wonder if they actually had a script ready before they started filming this, or they were simply making it all up as they went along. (*1/2) | 0 |
train_6417 | The inspiring story of Carl Brashear (Cuba Gooding, Jr.), a black man who grew up in poverty in Kentucky and then joined the US Navy, aspiring to be the first black Master Diver in Navy history. We are shown the series of struggles from boyhood on that Brashear has to overcome to make his dream come true (and then to keep it alive.) Not the least of the challenges was Master Diver Bill Sunday (Robert DeNiro), the head trainer at the diving school the Navy sends Brashear to, who is not especially sympathetic to Brashear's goals, but who ultimately becomes an unlikely friend and supporter.This is a good movie; fast paced and with a lot of action, although not an "action" pic in the normal sense of the word. There's a very human story here as well, and an interesting study of racism and the struggle to overcome it; there's also a sense of the struggle that took place in the 1960's between older and younger naval officers (the "old navy" vs the "new navy.") The performances are quite good - particularly Goodings'. I thought DeNiro was perhaps a bit over the top in his portrayal of Sunday (although, who knows, Sunday might well have been this extreme kind of loose cannon) and the portrayal of Sunday's wife Gwen (by Charlize Theron) also made me question whether these parts were "jazzed up" to provide entertainment value.A good movie, though. I never once wondered if it was worth tuning into.7/10 | 1 |
train_15863 | The original movie ( dated 19??)did not show any "monster" , it just SUGGESTED scary "things" , .This version however shows every aspect of a "sick minded ghost" , including unnecessary special effects . The "mystery " ,as presented in the original movie , was the most scary part : one simply did not know what was causing the weird things that happened. By showing the face of the "old man" , this Mister has completely disappeared. Even worse : the special effects ( crying wooden children faces) is ridiculous. This is a stupid remake , too obviously spectacular to even be close as scary as the original | 0 |
train_15336 | I saw this obvious schlock fest on a video store shelf. And before i got my first VCR I figured I'd christen it with this little gem and it's bad film-making at it's finest!The dialog is inadvertently hilarious. And it contains a cameo with Donald Trump. Anthony Quinn is in it inexplicably. And much like Christopher Walken seemed to want to star in every bad movie in his later years. This movie is Mr. Quinn's Country Bears.It features lines like, "Shut up and let me FIGHT!!!"And "You're saying a lot of sh_it!" And the priceless comeback: "Unfortunately it is sh_it, tough angry sh_it!"You'll be awed by a fight scene as Bo does a SOMMERSAULT across a billiard table! And does a nice kung fu kick when she comes up from the roll! Chop socky action and T and A thrills!!!What schlock movie fan could ask for more? Oh, and when Mr. Quinn's character commits suicide and and comes back to haunt Bo as a ghost she asks him why he killed himself rather then deal with his debilitating illness? He says, "Real men don't eat quiche."Uh, aaa, yeah. If Bo was a smart cookie she woulda called for an exorcist right then and there! | 0 |
train_535 | A Matter of Life and Death, what can you really say that would properly do justice to the genius and beauty of this film. Powell and Pressburger's visual imagination knows no bounds, every frame is filled with fantastically bold compositions. The switches between the bold colours of "the real world" to the stark black and white of heaven is ingenious, showing us visually just how much more vibrant life is. The final court scene is also fantastic, as the judge and jury descend the stairway to heaven to hold court over Peter (David Niven)'s operation. All of the performances are spot on (Roger Livesey being a standout), and the romantic energy of the film is beautiful, never has there been a more romantic film than this (if there has I haven't seen it). A Matter of Life and Death is all about the power of love and just how important life is. And Jack Cardiff's cinematography is reason enough to watch the film alone, the way he lights Kim Hunter's face makes her all the more beautiful, what a genius, he can make a simple things such as a game of table tennis look exciting. And the sound design is also impeccable; the way the sound mutes at vital points was a decision way ahead of its timeThis is a true classic that can restore anyone's faith in cinema, under appreciated on its initial release and by today's audiences, but one of my all time favourites, which is why I give this film a 10/10, in a word - Beautiful. | 1 |
train_165 | One of my favorite scenes is at the beginning when guests on a private yacht decide to take an impromptu swim - in their underwear! Rather risqué for 1931! | 1 |
train_6783 | If you like "Othello," you'll love this flick since half the movie revolves around the stage production of the play.The film has a great cast with Signe Hasso and Shelley Winters as the women in Colman's life while Edmond O'Brien plays the enterprising press agent.A couple of the supporting players I particularly liked were Millard Mitchell as the grizzled reporter who finds an angle and Joe Sawyer, the 1940's answer to Drew Carey, who plays the cop on the case.Great raw moments in this one with noir realism throughout. | 1 |
train_13735 | I really looked forward to see Planet of the Apes, but it was a huge dissapointment.The settings and masks are great, but that is the only good aspect of the film. All other things are really annoying. Mark Wahlberg is not acting, he is just in the movie, looking stupid. The other actors are also not very good.But the worst point of all, is the story. It is absolutely ridiculous! For example: the apes are lying unconsiousness on the ground, but the humans don`t attack them, no, they wait until they are up again! This is just one example for the stupid story, but it would take too long to tell them all. | 0 |
train_12376 | Boasting an all-star cast so impressive that it almost seems like the "Mad Mad Mad Mad World" of horror pictures, "The Sentinel" (1977) is nevertheless an effectively creepy film centering on the relatively unknown actress Cristina Raines. In this one, she plays a fashion model, Alison Parker, who moves into a Brooklyn Heights brownstone that is (and I don't think I'm giving away too much at this late date) very close to the gateway of Hell. And as a tenant in this building, she suffers far worse conditions than leaky plumbing and the occasional water bug, to put it mildly! Indeed, the scene in which Alison encounters her noisy upstairs neighbor is truly terrifying, and should certainly send the ice water coursing down the spines of most viewers. Despite many critics' complaints regarding Raines' acting ability, I thought she was just fine, more than ably holding her own in scenes with Ava Gardner, Burgess Meredith, Arthur Kennedy, Chris Sarandon and Eli Wallach. The picture builds to an effectively eerie conclusion, and although some plot points go unexplained, I was left feeling more than satisfied. As the book "DVD Delirium" puts it, "any movie with Beverly D'Angelo and Sylvia Miles as topless cannibal lesbians in leotards can't be all bad"! On a side note, yesterday I walked over to 10 Montague Terrace in Brooklyn Heights to take a look at the Sentinel House. Yes, it's still there, and although shorn of its heavy coat of ivy and lacking a blind priest/nun at the top-floor window, looks much the same as it did in this picture. If this house really does sit atop the entrance to Hell, I take it that Hell is...the Brooklyn Queens Expressway. But we New Yorkers have known THAT for some time! | 1 |
train_15010 | This TV film tells the story of extrovert Frannie suddenly returning to Silk Hope to visit friends and family, but unaware of her mother's death. Her sister runs the family home, but is intending to sell it and move away with her new husband. Frannie strongly objects to the idea, and vows to keep the family heirloom as it were, by getting a job and maintaining responsibility.In comes handsome Ruben and the two soon fall in love (as you do), and it's from this point that I sort of lost interest....There is more to Farrah Fawcett than just the blonde hair and looks, she can portray a character extremely convincingly when she puts her mind to it - and it is certainly proved here as well as some of her previous efforts like Extremities and Small Sacrificies - a great performance from the legendary Charlie's Angel.Silk Hope is the type of film that never shies away from its cheap and cheerful TV image, and you know there was a limit to the budget, but it's not the worst film ever made. The positive aspects are there; you just have to find them. | 0 |
train_1754 | This movie starts out hilarious from about the 15 second mark, and continues it throughout the movie. I cannot recall a scene where i didn't turn to look at people laughing with me. he is the perfect actor for this roll because of the way he looks and the way he dressed.The comedic parts were great to see from actors not very big or popular. As you can see people do like this movie it is currently rated 7.9 on IMDb. i think it should be in 250. Lets put it this way i haven't seen this funny of a movie since American pie or the original vacation. see it if you want a laugh. I give this movie 2 of the highest thumbs up i have ever given since i found out about IMDb, great movie site. | 1 |
train_6836 | Yesterday, I went to the monthly Antique Flea Market that comes to town. I really have no interest in such things, but I went for the fellowship of friends who do have such an interest. Looking over the hundreds of vendor, passing many of them quickly, I spotted someone selling VHS tapes and DVDs. Most of the films he had on DVD were rather recent; the oldest one I noticed was the 1940 Cary Grant-Irene Dunne co-starrer MY FAVORITE WIFE. But the VHS tapes, by their nature, were mostly older films. I couldn't resist buying SOMETHING since they were being sold at 3 tapes for $10.00. What a bargain, as Eddie Murphy used to say. I came across one film that I had heard about for years but had never seen: John Cassavettes's OPENING NIGHT (1977). Well, I certainly wanted that being a fan of Gena Rowlands, and I had heard that this film contained one of her finest performances. He also had FACES (1968). I had seen this about 20 years ago, a time when I probably had not had enough life experience to appreciate it thoroughly. And I wanted to take advantage of the bargain, so I grabbed that one too. My other choice was CLAIRE'S KNEE (1970). When I got home, I decided to put aside the work I had planned to do so that I could watch OPENING NIGHT. I was totally enthralled by this film. It focuses on Myrtle Gordon (Gena Rowlands), a famous actress of stage and screen, who, during out-of-town previews, is having personal and professional problems coming to terms with both her character and the play's theme of facing aging. After one rehearsal, an avid fan and autograph hound accosts her with cries (and tears) of "I love you! I love you!" A few minutes later, this fan is hit by a car and killed. This begins Myrtle's descent into herself where she must face her own fears of aging, the future of her career as a mature actress, and the inadequacies she finds in the play itself (written by a much older female dramatist, played by Joan Blondell). Throughout the film, she sees the dead girl, an obvious symbol of her past; drinks almost constantly; and receives insincere support from her director (Ben Gazzara), the producer (Paul Stewart), her costar (John Cassavettes himself), and the dramatist. Actually, they're more concerned about how her behavior will affect them and their careers: flubbing lines on stage, improvising new lines, generally cracking up on stage, and arriving for the Broadway opening totally drunk. This story functions not only to address the issues of aging but also to promote Cassavettes's displeasure with mainstream movie-making. As I watched the film, I was at times surprised, confused, amused, disparaging, but ultimately involved, entertained, and satisfied. Cassavettes really had a great sense of humor, cared very much that his audience understood what he was implying, and wanted them to be emotionally involved in the story. He makes allusions to ALL ABOUT EVE with the use of the avid theater fan, even dressing the young girl in a slicker and hat similar to the one worn by Anne Baxter at the beginning of that film. This allusion functions most obviously to support his aging theme, the contrast of the older and younger woman. He also obviously uses the contrast as a symbol for Myrtle's confronting her own lost youth. At first, I felt the symbolism was TOO obvious, but then I realized that that was Cassavettes's intention. He doesn't want his audience misunderstanding what he's getting at; if they did, it would interfere with their emotional involvement. This spectre of youth haunts Myrtle, attacks her, and wants to destroy her. Myrtle eventually "kills" her, but before she can really come to terms with herself and the play, she must reach bottom (another figurative death?). So Cassavettes has her get so drunk that she can't walk and must crawl to her dressing room the night the play opens on Broadway. She resurrects herself (helping yourself out of such situations is also important to the film's theme) and makes the play a success by giving a great performance and changing the direction of play for the better by improvising so that it contains some ray of hope for the aging character she's playing. These scenes are funny and interesting. Cassavettes and Rowlands actually did the play in front of live audiences, who did and did not know they were going to be part of a movie. The play they're doing also acts as contrast: it's mainstream and self-serious about the issues it addresses, that is, until Myrtle changes its denouement. In doing so, she also improves the work of her co-stars. The natural evolution of interaction (achieved through improvisation)between and among human beings, subjective realism, and universal truth - these were Cassavettes's concerns in making films. Gena Rowlands is amazing throughout. Of course, she has that great face, and Cassavettes (notoriously in love with her throughout their marriage) treats us to numerous closeups of it so that we too can feel her emotions and that we know what's going on inside of her. She makes you care so much about this character that you want to see her work her way out of this crisis of the soul. And this is what holds your attention for the 2 hours and 30 minutes running time. The film is deliberately paced at times and requires constant attention, but anyone with interest in good film-making and great acting will be rewarded. Someone else said that this is a movie for people who love movies. All others be forewarned. Seek out OPENING NIGHT if you've never seen it. Everyone in it is excellent, and it's one of Cassavettes's best films. | 1 |
train_8912 | I have read many comments on this site criticizing The Blob for being cheesy and or campy. The movie has been faulted for amateurish acting and weak special effects. What would you expect from a group of folks whose only experience has been in the production of low budget, locally produced (Valley Forge PA) Christian Shorts. Let me tell those overly critical reviewers that this film never took itself all that serious. That fact should be evident from the mismatched theme music complete with silly lyrics played over the opening credits. For what it was meant to be, this film is excellent. I have seen a few of the recent ultra low budget attempts, Blair Witch Project was one of them, that have absolutely no entertainment value or intelligent thought behind their plot. BWP was pure excrement. The Blob, on the other hand, was well thought out, well scripted, and thoroughly entertaining. The scene where the old man comes across the meteorite and pokes the mass contained within with a stick was excellently done and genuinely creepy. The scene in the doctor's office with the Blob slowly moving under the blanket on the gurney while it consumed the old man was a cinematic horror masterpiece. Bottom line is, I love this movie. I challenge anyone out there to take $120,000.00, inflated for today's dollar value, and make a film anywhere near as entertaining and or as successful as the Blob. It just can't be done. PERIOD! Thank you for taking time to read this review. | 1 |
train_19577 | Sammy Horn (Michael Des Barres) is the head chef and owner of a famous restaurant in California. He has a lovely wife, Grace Horn (Rosanna Arquette), who is pregnant, and a beautiful son of about five years old. Sammy indeed loves his family, but like Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde, he has a double life, having sex with many different women. Dr. Jane Bordeaux (Nastassja Kinski) is trying to help him. OK, it is my fault: I read the summary of the other IMDB user comments, I saw the IMDB user rating, but I really did not believe that Rosanna Arquette and Nastassja Kinski could participate in such a bad movie. I decided to check it, and actually some comments are very complacent. The storyline, the screenplay and the dialogs are so silly and laughable that even in some X-rated movies we can find more intelligent stories. The photography is so amateurish and naive that in some parts it seems to be taken through a VHS camcorder. Michael Des Barres does not have sense of ridiculous: being an old man, bald, would be acceptable in an advertisement of Viagra or grandfather of the small boy. But as an attractive man who gets and has sex with any woman, it is scary. In Wood Allen's comedy, maybe he got a chance, but in a `serious' movie, it is funny. I am trying to figure out why or how Rosanna Arquette and Nastassja Kinski accepted to participate in such awful, amateurish and trash movie. Do they need money? Lack of chances in better movies due to their ages? Are they friends of the `director' (sorry for using this word) and decided to help and promote him? I do not know whether the intention of Rosanna Arquette was to show her breasts full of silicone, but it is unacceptable that such a great actress accepts such a script. The same is applicable to the gorgeous Nastassja Kinki. She is presented fat, without make-up, without any glamour. A total lack of respect with one of the most beautiful actress in the cinema history. A fact is really intriguing me: how can a reader, without any personal interest, promote this trash, giving higher ratings or writing favorable comments about this movie? Are they friends of the `director' (again, I am using this word...) or the cast? It sounds very strange to me that a normal IMDB reader can like such a film. My vote is two.Title (Brazil): `Viciado Em Sexo' (`Addicted In Sex') | 0 |
train_20432 | Oh dear!What a disappointment. I've been watching old Westerns on British TV for decades, and I wasn't aware of this one until its showing yesterday - most other Scott Westerns come around every few years or so and are usually worth watching again.The rich colour and outdoor sets were good, but that's all I can say about this film. I have to agree with most of the other negative comments already made. Several times I felt like turning it off, and finally I did, halfway through, something I hardly ever do.Scott seemed unusually oily in charming the girls, his two sidekicks were annoying and so was the Mexican bandit lad. And I've a feeling the army uniforms were 20 years or so too modern, not that this has bothered makers of many other Westerns.Perhaps it got better in the second half, but I couldn't be bothered to wait and see. | 0 |
train_17945 | Ooof! This one was a stinker. It does not fall 'somewhere in between Star Wars and Thriller', thats for sure. In all actuality, it falls somewhere between the cracks of a Wham! video and Captain EO, only with not as big of a budget, and a lot more close ups of ugly teenagers crying. Simon Le Bon preens front and center, while the rest of the band gamely tries to hide the fact that they stole their whole career from Roxy Music's last 3 albums. Brief clips from Barbarella add nothing. Avoid at all costs. (However, I liked the part when they played 'Hungry Like The Wolf' but why was there a tiger lurking in the audience changing into a woman painted with tiger stripes? I mean, they aren't singing 'Eye of the Tiger' or 'Hungry like the Tiger' it's a Wolf! Whatever.) A DVD of Duran Duran's '80s videos is probably worth a look for nostalgia's sake | 0 |
train_23947 | Quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen; I was ready to walk out after the first ten minutes. The only people laughing in the theater were the tweeners. Don't get me wrong, I love silly, stupid movies just as much as the next gal, but the whole premise, writing and humor stunk. It seemed to me that they were going for a "Napoleon Dynamite" feel - strange and random scenes which would lead to a cult audience. Instead, it ended up being forced, awkward and weird.The only bright light was Isla Fisher and I just felt utterly awful that she (and Sissy Spacek) had signed up for this horrible thing.Thank gosh I didn't pay for it. | 0 |
train_22500 | Airport '77 starts as a brand new luxury 747 plane is loaded up with valuable paintings & such belonging to rich businessman Philip Stevens (James Stewart) who is flying them & a bunch of VIP's to his estate in preparation of it being opened to the public as a museum, also on board is Stevens daughter Julie (Kathleen Quinlan) & her son. The luxury jetliner takes off as planned but mid-air the plane is hi-jacked by the co-pilot Chambers (Robert Foxworth) & his two accomplice's Banker (Monte Markham) & Wilson (Michael Pataki) who knock the passengers & crew out with sleeping gas, they plan to steal the valuable cargo & land on a disused plane strip on an isolated island but while making his descent Chambers almost hits an oil rig in the Ocean & loses control of the plane sending it crashing into the sea where it sinks to the bottom right bang in the middle of the Bermuda Triangle. With air in short supply, water leaking in & having flown over 200 miles off course the problems mount for the survivor's as they await help with time fast running out...Also known under the slightly different tile Airport 1977 this second sequel to the smash-hit disaster thriller Airport (1970) was directed by Jerry Jameson & while once again like it's predecessors I can't say Airport '77 is any sort of forgotten classic it is entertaining although not necessarily for the right reasons. Out of the three Airport films I have seen so far I actually liked this one the best, just. It has my favourite plot of the three with a nice mid-air hi-jacking & then the crashing (didn't he see the oil rig?) & sinking of the 747 (maybe the makers were trying to cross the original Airport with another popular disaster flick of the period The Poseidon Adventure (1972)) & submerged is where it stays until the end with a stark dilemma facing those trapped inside, either suffocate when the air runs out or drown as the 747 floods or if any of the doors are opened & it's a decent idea that could have made for a great little disaster flick but bad unsympathetic character's, dull dialogue, lethargic set-pieces & a real lack of danger or suspense or tension means this is a missed opportunity. While the rather sluggish plot keeps one entertained for 108 odd minutes not that much happens after the plane sinks & there's not as much urgency as I thought there should have been. Even when the Navy become involved things don't pick up that much with a few shots of huge ships & helicopters flying about but there's just something lacking here. George Kennedy as the jinxed airline worker Joe Patroni is back but only gets a couple of scenes & barely even says anything preferring to just look worried in the background.The home video & theatrical version of Airport '77 run 108 minutes while the US TV versions add an extra hour of footage including a new opening credits sequence, many more scenes with George Kennedy as Patroni, flashbacks to flesh out character's, longer rescue scenes & the discovery or another couple of dead bodies including the navigator. While I would like to see this extra footage I am not sure I could sit through a near three hour cut of Airport '77. As expected the film has dated badly with horrible fashions & interior design choices, I will say no more other than the toy plane model effects aren't great either. Along with the other two Airport sequels this takes pride of place in the Razzie Award's Hall of Shame although I can think of lots of worse films than this so I reckon that's a little harsh. The action scenes are a little dull unfortunately, the pace is slow & not much excitement or tension is generated which is a shame as I reckon this could have been a pretty good film if made properly.The production values are alright if nothing spectacular. The acting isn't great, two time Oscar winner Jack Lemmon has said since it was a mistake to star in this, one time Oscar winner James Stewart looks old & frail, also one time Oscar winner Lee Grant looks drunk while Sir Christopher Lee is given little to do & there are plenty of other familiar faces to look out for too.Airport '77 is the most disaster orientated of the three Airport films so far & I liked the ideas behind it even if they were a bit silly, the production & bland direction doesn't help though & a film about a sunken plane just shouldn't be this boring or lethargic. Followed by The Concorde ... Airport '79 (1979). | 0 |
train_18388 | I saw this recently on a faded old VHS tape, and remembered it dimly. Looking at it now, it seems charming.When it was first released, it was recognized by pretty much everyone as a spoof of coming out as a gay teenager. To hammer the point home, the mother is seen reading a paperback copy of "1 Teenager In 10", the most popular coming out book of the time. David Warner hams it up as the persecuting vampire hunter [= gay-hating evangelist], who is of course a self-loathing closet case. The list of sight gags and in-jokes that were included to make sure nobody missed the point would be too long to go into. The producers were having some good-natured fun, and hoping, no doubt, to lighten-up as well as to enlighten.But I have no clue how a teenage audience would look at this film, nowadays. In some places, where there is education and culture, the terrifying ordeals that gay teens had to go through are a thing of the past. But I'm sure there are plenty of dark, nasty corners of our continent where it's just as bad as it always was. | 0 |
train_5295 | I thought this was an utterly charming film. The story seems to be a thinly veiled autobiography of John Waters: Pecker's greatest gift is his ability to find beauty in unexpected places. Edward Furlong does well in the lead, but the best performances are by his grandmother, Mink Stole (a hilarious cameo) and, of all people, Patty Hearst. I think the reviewers are way off base on this one. They seem to be taking Pecker's worst valuation of his work as gospel, when I think the film pretty clearly states that he is indeed a promising artist. | 1 |
train_15422 | Take young, pretty people, put them in an exotic locale, stick in a few bad guys, have the two lead characters find romance after a couple of heavy breathing scenes, create the flimsiest of plots, then work out a happy ending for everybody (other than the three or four who get murdered, of course) That's the classic (and successful) format of the Harlequin Romance. It's not very good but then it's not very bad either, like most of the little yellow pocket books. And the location stuff in Budapest is especially interesting, even if they didn't use the wonderful old train station (designed by Gustave Eifel) or show the city's famous thermal baths. | 0 |
train_2764 | On the eighth day God created Georges. But the same as an eighth day doesn't fit into the week, Georges doesn't fit into the modern world: He has Down syndrome and is therefore marginalized by society, shunted off to an asylum after his mother's death four years ago. She was the only one who loved him.Harry is another man that isn't loved anymore. His wife has left him, for reasons that she is unable to explain. He loses the love of his daughters, too, when he arrives too late at the railway station to collect the two kids, who wanted to spend the weekend with their father.Harry is a highly ranked businessman. He knows all the rules that enable us to succeed in our modern meritocracy. But he has entered a state of crisis, which reaches a climax after the loss of the love of his daughters. He questions the sense of his life, without obtaining any definite results.Harry and Georges meet. At first Harry tries to get rid of Georges, the same as all the others do. But Georges can't be shaken off. And it gradually dawns on Harry, how much he needs Georges, if he wants to get over his identity crisis. It is Georges who opens a new access to the world for him and who makes him view his life with different eyes. Friendship and human warmth take the place of calculating striving for success. It is no surprise that Harry now cannot avoid failing in his job.Georges helps Harry to regain the recognition of the daughters. Even his wife has to admit that the fireworks which he organized were worth seeing. Nonetheless a reintegration into the old life is no longer possible. And the new one turns out to be nothing more than a dream with a time limit, which unstoppably will reach its end. The camera watches Harry and Georges from above, for one long minute, as they are both lying down in the grass, just savoring the moment. But the same as this minute will unavoidably go by, the friendship of the two men, which came into being in such a wondrous fashion, will not be long-lasting. Georges is destroyed by the impossibility of love to the opposite sex and can see no other way out but to commit suicide. Harry turns into a city tramp, who asks the car drivers that are waiting in front of the traffic lights for charity.The movie describes modern meritocracy as a disastrous mechanism which devours positive values such as human warmheartedness or friendship. It is Georges, the mongol, who seems to be capable of showing the way out of the dilemma, but unfortunately his plea comes to a bad end. However, his failure does not necessarily have to mean that it is impossible or not desirable to reach the aspired goal. The way he shows us is surely passable, although it requires a huge amount of willpower and, above all, the courage to apply a radical nonconformism. | 1 |
train_4692 | Although critically maligned, Johnny Dangerously is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. It's a movie that should be watched closely; some of the funny bits are done in passing and do not have the usual amount of attention drawn to them. For instance, keep an eye on Michael Keaton's use of the pricing gun at the pet store...and also on the documentary-style years that appear at the beginning of scenes. It's one of those rare movies where the humor hits you unexpectedly, even though you know it's a comedy. Amy Heckerling, the director, is really sharp here--If you enjoyed her better known films (Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Clueless, European Vacation, etc.,)you should give this one a look.Michael Keaton is extremely likable in the title role and the supporting cast (Griffin Dunne, Maureen Stapleton, Joe Piscopo, Peter Boyle) is excellent. Highly recommended. | 1 |
train_8354 | I originally saw this film years ago during Cinemax Friday after dark series(back when the cable box was built like a keyboard),and it intrigued me. Even though there is a pointless aspect to the film it is well acted.The performances of Depardieu & Dewaere are very enjoyable.They have a good chemistry together & Miou-Miou makes a pink fur look breathtaking.A movie like this probably wouldn't be made in these politically correct times(at least not in the US), since it seems to sensationalize things like violence,robbery,& casual sex. This movie proves that with a talented cast & also talented directing a good movie is a good movie no matter the subject.It saddened me to find out Patrick Dewaere committed suicide & in the near future I,ll will check him out with Depardieu & Miou-Miou in Get Out Your Hankerchief. | 1 |
train_10124 | Shinjuku Triad Society, albeit from perfect, is a fiercely compelling film for what it tries to depict in its uber-conventional realm. It's a yakuza/triad picture, involving cops versus Japanese &/or Chinese gangsters (mostly Chinese, as the title suggests), but already even in his first technical 'debut', Takashi Miike is already establishing many aspects to films that he would make from here-on in. Social issues like black market trading of precious goods, in this case human organs usually from children; nostalgia for childhood and one's roots, which was especially prevalent in Dead or Alive 2; thumbing-of-the-nose at taboos like gay sex and (satirical) rape/violence towards women; blood-curdling violence. It's certainly not as surreal as some of Miike's most recent films, but this is expected as he's trying out things that he's just starting to learn, following a track record of straight to video programmers. It's got all of those qualities, and it's also, like the films that would follow from it, equally savage and heartfelt, crazy (in spots) and sardonic in its drama, and solid for genre fans.The story concerns two brothers, one a Chinese orphan raised in Japan, Tatsuhito Kiriya (Kippei Shiina, pretty decent as a Eastwood-esquire anti-hero/hero), who's become a detective, and another, who's become a gangster, or a would-be one. The main arch likely takeover gang comes from Wang (a definite pun on what the gang represents during its spare-time, played by Tomorowo Taguchi as a typical wacko with real terror in his eyes), and his partner Karino (Takeshi Caesar, who's threatening even when just repeating a commandment over and over to a woman who's just had her eye plugged out following a sour deal), who are the ruthless kind to pop up almost organically in a Miike movie. There's some intrigue involving the organ-trading scheme with the gangsters, which Kiriya almost becomes a victim of, and the gang's penchant for gay sex- at least with one little puppet of sorts who does whatever the main gangsters want. It all leads up to vengeance and redemption, qualities that Miike and his writer are trying to emulate from Shakespeare (hence the Macbeth bit with Wang washing his bloody hangs over and over after some gay sex saying "it won't come off").If it doesn't add up to the same emotional level of impact that a great Shakespeare play would have, it's par for the course of a film like this. Miike's goals are met, though just met, in his low-scale ambitions: a gangster picture with some added levels of harsh familial trouble (the main tension between the brothers comes out of profession and duty to parents), notes on the crueler aspects of underworld crime, and what the realm of unrepentant sex, with both sexes, brings out psychologically in the characters. At the same time, Shinjuku Triad Society also contains more than a few moments of classic biting black-comedy from the Miike oeuvre. Some of it just has to be taken with a grain of salt for what the director does in his outrageousness, like the bit at the beginning with the chair smashing over the face, or the randomness of the "interrogation" as it goes into a very twisted area. There's even a laugh-out-loud line from the young sex-slave after finishing an act on one of the bosses: "Thank you, Mr. Weeny-Burger." Miike and his writer don't have enough here to make the film a full-on dark comedy like Ichi or, of course, Visitor Q, but there's enough to bring some appropriate levity to the darker aspects to the story and characters.As the first entry of the "Black Society" trilogy, as it's called, I was quite impressed, and it's a fine quasi-calling card from one of the craziest new artists in contemporary cinema. | 1 |
train_20647 | This movie was a confusing piece of garbage. You never knew what was going on. The characters were poorly written and for the most part they were totally unsympathetic except for Gus (played masterfully by George Eads). I hate this movie but compared to others (Dark Harvest, Dracula's Curse) it should have won an academy award. It was particularly sad to see a talented actor like George Eads in such a disgraceful and tacky film. Lifetime you have sunken to whole new low. Someone needs to make sure that this director never works in movies again. Also was this supposed to be a horror film because it was a lot more funny than scary. For shame Lifetime, For shame. | 0 |
train_21845 | I feel like I've been had, the con is on, don't fall for it. After reading glowing reviews (the Director was a film reviewer with Sky for years so must have a lot of mates in the press ready to do him a favour by writing favorable reviews) I expected solid acting, atmosphere, suspense, strong characterization, an intriguing plot development and poetic moments. Sadly, 'Sixteen years of Alcohol', doesn't deliver on the critics promises, for the most part, sacrifices these qualities in lieu of cheesy low budget special effects (what was that clichéd cobweb scene in there for?), unrealistic fight choreography and mindless mind numbing narration, cliché edits and camera angles.'Sixteen years of Alcohol' starts off interestingly with some beautiful location shots in Scotland, but it's straight downhill from here. Unfortunately, instead of spending some time building atmosphere, creating characters we might care about, or building suspense - the director opts to begin driving you crazy with self indulgent heavy handed twaddle voice-over's. The lead characters are so unsympathetic and are so badly acted - the audience doesn't care what happens to them, desperate Actors do desperate things...like this movie!. To make matters worse, the 'homage's' (typical of a director trying to pay his dues to past masters) are either utterly cliché or unconvincing. The soundtrack is the only thing that lifted me and kept me in the cinema but even that failed to support the dramatic narrative other connecting a period of time to the action.For some reason the movie got increasingly flawed and to be quite honest annoying. I still watched the whole damn thing!I guess I liked the attempt at gritty realism in the film but even that was destroyed when they were often inter-cut with weird and abstract, sometimes pointless scenes. You don't need a huge budget to make truly moving film, so much has been said about how little money they had to make this film, half a million is not a little bit of money...SO NO EXCUSES! Sometimes I wonder what the actors...Or their agents were thinking!Pass on this turkey unless you're masochistic or mindless anyway....NOT MY THING1.5/10 | 0 |
train_3382 | Not often have i had the feeling of a movie it could be visionary. But clearly this movie has the seed of a premonition.We should not tend to be alarmists and see armageddon in something because it seems to fit our emotions of the moment. But, didn't we say this of "1984" ? Had James Orwell known the Internet becoming reality not long after 1984; In fact it was in 1994; he might have reconsidered writing his story the way he did. Hindsight rewarded.It doesn't matter. What DOES matter is that we often regard ourselves as superior to our surroundings but indeed become emotional about a "love apple" when necessity knocks at our door. A snapshot of ourselves at old age.Whatever the time-line will prove to be for us, I know for a fact we haven't seen the beginning of it yet. | 1 |
train_18831 | Mr. Mike was probably the most misanthropic comedian of all time, so I was interested to see what he'd do with total creative control over a movie. Sadly, it is unwatchable, though not because the jokes aren't funny--some (I won't say most) of them are, and in fact Mr. Mike did a good job translating his mentally unbalanced screeds into visual gags. The trouble is that the technical quality (sets, lighting, sound, editing, you name it) is so God-awful, the movie is intolerable. Some outfit called "PKO Productions" gets the producing credit, but it doesn't look produced at all; it looks more like Mike stole one of the cameras from the SNL set and made the whole thing in an afternoon. I realize Mike's goal was to torture the audience, but even that deserves some basic standards, such as the ability to actually see, hear or comprehend whatever it is that's supposed to be shocking. Still, the DVD isn't a total waste: it includes a eulogy for O'Donoghue by Bill Murray and three "Mr. Mike's Least Loved Bedtime Stories" from SNL. Plus, the "cat swimming" section of the movie is a great scene to be caught watching if you want to freak someone out. 3/10 | 0 |
train_17730 | Although Robert "Knox" Benfer has his fans, I'm not one of them. His films are asinine and amateurish, and and just not very funny, unless you're a 14 year old with an underdeveloped sense of humor. He's certainly not famous, as him immature fans would like you to believe, by harassing people at Wikipedia, or stuffing the ratings votes here at the IMDb. He's certainly not been profiled by any major media outlets, which speaks volumes about his and his creation's "fame".Benfer does have some slight skill at limited animation, but he needs to get away from his young sycophants and learn to write some actual funny material before he'll be taken seriously as a real entertainer. As of this moment, though, he's just a kid with a camera, and it shows. | 0 |
train_9350 | let me say that i love Adam Sandler, watching reign over me i was paying close attention to his actingwhen he raises his voice, i cant help but think of happy gilmore yelling at a golf ball, then i snap back as Adam Sandler sucks me inReign over Me is a great film, a film that comes off slow at first with you expecting emotion in every sceneDon Cheadle always does a great job and is no exception here with some truly great lines and is worthy of an Oscar in any movie he doesadam sandler was amazing in so many ways not only was this his most dramatic/best acted film of his career. but i can recall laughing out loud at many parts of this filmThe supporting cast was great also with Saffron Burroughs and Jada Pinkett SmithI would highly recommend this movie its got tremendous acting beautiful shots of NYC great comedy great drama And a new found respect for Adam sandler if you ever doubted him or a reassurance at how great Don Cheadle is | 1 |
train_10171 | Once when I was in college and we had an international fair, the Russian section had a Soviet-era poster saying "Ne boltay!", meaning "Don't gossip!". I "translated" it for the "generation" of TV watchers as "Don't be Gladys Kravitz!" (in reference to the nosy neighbor on "Bewitched").However, when you see the result of gossip in the Pvt. Snafu short "Rumors", you see that it's not quite a laughing matter. In this case, the perpetually witless soldier overhears something about bombing and immediately assumes that the Axis Powers have attacked the United States. So, he tells it to someone, who tells someone else, who tells someone else, and it continues. As in "The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming", the story gets blown more and more out of proportion each time, so that when it gets back to Snafu...well, you know what I mean! Yes, it's mostly WWII propaganda - complete with a derogatory term for the Japanese - but I have to say that the Pvt. Snafu shorts were actually quite funny. Of course, since they had Dr. Seuss writing and Mel Blanc providing the voices, it's no surprise that these came out rather cool. Worth seeing. | 1 |
train_8334 | It was a doubly interesting experience. For some reason the greatest scientific mind of the 20th Century had never been the central figure in a movie*. The closest I can think of as films with Einstein in them are CHAMPAIGN FOR CAESAR, where (like a "deus ex ma-china") the great man is heard clarifying a point on a radio quiz show, so that Ronald Colman is proved to have given the correct answer after all, and in BULLSHOT where the great Albert is one of a dozen leading physicists and scientists who are drugged with cannabis by the villain, intent on stealing some machines of theirs. It is notable that in those two cases, and in IQ, we are dealing with comedies. So far nobody has tried to do a serious film about the life of Einstein, like John Huston's attempt to do one on FREUD with Montgomery Cliff. I guess it is just too hard to get the world of mathematical equations or the secrets of electro-magnetic field theory into exciting dialog. But then, only three years ago Russell Crowe and Christopher Plummer did A BEAUTIFUL MIND. Maybe nobody really has tried.(*Subsequently, after writing this, I remembered the successful comedy YOUNG EINSTEIN with Yahoo Serious about ten years ago. But that is an exception and it was a spoof.)The other surprise was the actor playing the great Albert. It was Walter Matthau, here taking time away from the series of films he did with Jack Lemmon in that last decade of their careers. Matthau was a highly capable and gifted character actor, in both comedy and drama, but normally his comic personas were variants of his "Whiplash Willie" Gingrich from THE FORTUNE COOKIE. They were connivers and gonifs. Later they would shed their criminal propensities because we had grown to like them, but they remained grumpy types. But his Albert Einstein happens to be genuinely sweet. More like his Kotch than like Willie Clarke.He plays Albert as good old uncle Albert. It seems that Matthau's Einstein is living in Princeton with his niece Catherine Boyd (Meg Ryan), and she is seeing a stuffy professor named James Morland (Stephen Fry). But Fry's car needs repairs, and they take it to the auto shop where Ed Walters (Tim Robbins) works. Robbins falls for Ryan, who is attracted to him - but finds that he lacks the mental equipment that she admires. Good old uncle Albert, aided by his three friends (Lou Jacobi, Joseph Maher, and Gene Saks) decide to give their assistance to Robbins and make him an apparently unrecognized physics genius. This will open the doors of romance between him and Ryan, provided Ryan is impressed and Fry does not spoil things (as he hopes to do).The atmosphere is sweet, as when Matthau and his chums rig up a super physics quiz that they help Robbins cheat on (by switching the positions of their bodies). The plot eventually leads to the outright lie that the brilliant Robbins has constructed an atomic powered rocket ship - which brings in the interests of the nation in the figure of President Eisenhower (Keene Curtis).It was a charming comedy, and an interesting stretch for Matthau in that he was not as hyper as normal, but far more subdued. | 1 |
train_9634 | This is an unusual Laurel & Hardy comedy with something of a split personality: at times it feels like two movies made in different styles spliced into a single short. Happily, each portion is funny in its own right, and the boys' seemingly effortless clowning carries the day and synthesizes the film's disparate elements into an entertaining whole. While I've never heard a fan cite DIRTY WORK as his or her favorite Laurel & Hardy comedy, it's nonetheless one that everybody seems to like.Our story is set in the home of Professor Noodle, who represents one key element of the story-line: a wildly over-the-top parody of Mad Scientist scenarios. This marks a rare venture into sci-fi territory for L&H; Abbott & Costello and The Three Stooges tangled with mad doctors far more often than Stan & Ollie. In any event, the professor is obsessed with creating a rejuvenating serum that can make people younger, while his sarcastic butler, Jessup, expresses the viewer's skepticism with rolled eyes and the occasional dry quip. Meanwhile, Stan & Ollie are chimney sweeps who show up at the Professor's home the very day he perfects his solution. "Their" portion of the film consists of characteristic (but first-rate) slapstick involving the chimney, the roof, shovels, and a number of unfortunate mishaps. If you don't enjoy watching these guys screw up a task then you probably won't like DIRTY WORK, but for fans of the team this movie is a feast. The highlight comes when Ollie plummets through the chimney, lands in the fireplace, and is then pummeled with bricks that fall onto his head with maddening rhythmic precision, one by one. I also like the shot of Ollie tumbling off the roof into a greenhouse; the process work is so slapdash I suspect it was something of an inside joke, the way W.C. Fields' movies would feature the world's worst rear-projection screens.The slapstick stuff is great fun, but it's the mad scientist motif that makes this film offbeat, and two supporting players deserve a tip of the bowler hat: prolific character actor Lucien Littlefield is terrific as the professor, delivering his overripe lines with relish and cackling with hammy glee, while Sam Adams is a stitch in the less showy role of Jessup the butler. As great as Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were in their prime, it's always worth noting that their supporting casts at the Hal Roach Studio gave their films an enormous boost. So too, usually, did the background music of Le Roy Shield, but DIRTY WORK marks a rare occasion from this period that a Roach comedy has no musical accompaniment at all after the opening credits. Mood music might have enhanced the proceedings, but no matter; this is a highly enjoyable comedy anyhow, and a prime example of what made Laurel & Hardy so popular in their day. | 1 |
train_3369 | Despite what the title may imply, "Pigs Is Pigs" does not star Porky Pig. Rather, it features a young swine with an appetite more insatiable than John Belushi's character in "Animal House". His mother repeatedly scolds him, but it does no good. So much so that he goes to another house where a deranged scientist force-feeds him more than any mere mortal can handle (but there's a surprise at the end).I would mostly say that this cartoon seemed like a place holder in between the really great cartoons (Daffy Duck debuted three months after this came out). But make no mistake about it, they do some neat things here. The whole force-feeding sequence looks more relevant today, given the obesity epidemic overtaking our country.Anyway, not the greatest cartoon, but worth seeing. | 1 |
train_17246 | There are several things wrong with this movie- Brenda Song's character being one of them. I do not believe that the girl is a lousy actor- I honestly don't. I believe she is given poor lines. She is just supposed to be, "that vain, rich girl", and while it is funny in the TV shows she plays in, it can't even get a dry laugh from me here.Either way, I really should have known what to expect when I sat down to watch this film.The movie was not that terrible...initially. Wendy's reaction to Shen was completely natural. I mean, how would you feel if a man, claiming to be a reincarnated monk, chased you around commanding you to wear a medallion and insisting that you were needed to fight "the great evil" and save the world? Which brings me to another point. I know this movie is entirely fiction, but it is still has a founding in Chinese culture. It seems like all of the "warriors" in Wendy's family line were women. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt that the monks would've just been okay with that. Sure, maybe they could've worked it in somehow, but they offered no explanation whatsoever. By doing so, they just contributed to the many cheesy attempts at female empowerment made by Hollywood and the media.Nevermind that, however- let us continue.Wendy's character becomes more unbearable as the film go on. Yes, she is a teenager, and it is near homecoming- I mean, who wants to fight evil during homecoming? The problem is, when "the evil" starts to manifest himself, Wendy does not seem as freaked out as she should be. She is extremely careless- even for someone like her. She continues not to care about her training. I will use this conversation as an example, Shen: "If you do not win this battle, evil will take over, and everything good will be gone." Wendy: "Whoa, talk about pressure. Well...let's talk about something else." Yes, let's Wendy. Let's also go dancing when you should rightfully be training. Of course Shen lets her, but his character has an excuse. Better that he cooperate with her, than that he not, and she not train at all, and get them both killed.Oh, speaking of which. Shen also told Wendy that it was his destiny for him to die for her in battle, as he had for her great-grandmother (I am assuming that part).This makes Wendy's actions more unforgivable.As the script-writer would have it, Wendy's homecoming and this "great battle" are on exactly the same day. Do you know what Wendy does? Do you even have to guess? Yes, she does end up going to the battle, for when she tries to leave for homecoming, the monks, (who Shen had trapped in the body of her coach and teachers because she "felt weird fighting an old man") inform her that Shen has gone to battle alone, so she goes to save him.We initially see some half-decent fighting, that is actually entertaining. Until finally, the great evil comes out of Wendy's rival-for-homecoming's body, and creates the actual embodiment of himself out of the broken pieces of the bodies of his ancient warriors.Don't ask.Anyway, Wendy gets all "panicky." Then Shen goes and defends her from this guy- forgive me for forgetting his long Chinese name- and manages to get himself killed.Wendy catches Shen as he makes his long descent from being thrust uncomfortably high into the air.She screams title of said article out.Now...it was bad enough that Wendy became powerful far, far too fast. No, I will not let it be excused because it was her "destiny" and she had "the power within" her.Since when, though, did she learn healing? No, worst...since when could she resurrect people? So Shen is raised from the dead. Then, Wendy and he fight the guy.He loses way to easily. The worst part, is when they jump together, and kick him at the same time, and he is banished forever. Then the monks commend Wendy on her sacrifice.Two things, #1: Don't the script writer and director know a battle needs a little more "finesse" to it? #2: What sacrifice? The fact that she didn't go to homecoming? Because the girl did not break a sweat, or even bleed. I mean, come on now, this movie was TV PG, I wanted to see somebody get hurt.Ah-hem...moving on.I know it sounds like maybe I should have given the movie a one, based on my comments. Part of critique, you must know, though, is breaking a thing down. You don't necessarily try to look for the bad, but if it's there, you bring attention to it. This movie has a lot of bad, but something funny happens when you never really expect something to be all too great in the first place.So, I suppose it was all right. Not that me not saying it wasn't all right would've stopped anybody from watching it. | 0 |
train_7960 | There have been countless talking-animal films in the past, the majority of which either feature animals' mouths digitally animated to nearly match the voice acting, or are ridiculously amateur. 'Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey' is neither.This film doesn't need the infant-pleasing addition of moving canine lips, or gesturing feline limbs. It has the ability to make you believe that the animals are authentically talking to one another, and you can get rather emotionally attached to them at heart (as all great boy-and-and-his-dog films should).Homeward Bound is the epitome of all family-friendly animal romps to me, and boasts some beautiful cinematography, an inspiring soundtrack (from the genius of Bruce Broughton), and an impressive cast...Michael J. Fox ... ChanceSally Field ... SassyDon Ameche ... ShadowFrank Welker (Voice God) ... VariousIt is a modernised version of the children's classic work of fiction 'The Incredible Journey', which was made into a semi-documentary film by Disney long long ago in 1963. The sequel (Lost in San Fransisco) isn't nearly as good a film, but extends the adventure of my favourite furry-footed friends, and is a fun urban-twist on the grand-outdoor-adventure theme. Want to entertain your children with a witty, pretty, heart-warming mini-epic, without the idiotic and often utterly ridiculous comedy of modern children's cinema? Parents, buy all three films for your children - now! Thank you, Disney, for bringing a tear to my eyes with each time I watch this early-90s classic! | 1 |
train_14951 | This movie causes more unintentional laughter than anything else I've ever seen. Really, if you are a Tolkien fan, rent it just to laugh at it with your friends. I won't be the millionth person to rip apart its flaws... all I will say is that the movie (for me, anyway) lost major points for turning my favorite character, Sam, into a bumbling idiot. Shame, shame... 3/10 | 0 |
train_9107 | Several story lines are interwoven here around different women characters. The shoes they wear serve as an indication of their troubled lives. All are transformed at the end of the movie. Adela (Antonia San Juan) leads a brothel; Her daughter Anita (Monica Cervera) is retarded and has a restricted life. Leire (Najwa Nimri) is a shoe designer with problems and loses her boyfriend; Maricarmen (Vicky Peña) has lost her husband and now raises the children from his deceased former wife. Isabel (Ángela Molina) is a bored rich lady.Other characters are used to connect the five main women characters. In storytelling not everything is given away in the beginning: Some connections are established surprisingly late in the movie and that adds to the experience. The shoe-theme is driven to extremes: For example when Leire as a shoe-designer and working in a shoe store where she steals her shoes faints, she breaks one of her heels.In editing small connections are made between the scenes. A telephone rings, a cigarette is lit, a song, etc. are used to make the connection and fast cuts. Frequent change of storyline keeps it from being boring or reaching TV-levels. It is strongly music-driven to set tone and atmosphere. The cities of Madrid and Lisbon serve as the backdrop for the stories, and shots of those cities are used to extend the story beyond the characters. One of the more moving shots is when Anita, who makes the same walk every day, widens her walk and restricted life from the relative calm of her street to the busy main road: How the restriction of space is visually translated is well done. As with most Spanish movies a lot of storytelling is done visually, using the soap-like stories as the simple backdrop. There is a poetic ending that is somewhat romantic and sentimental but is still beautiful.As Ramón Salazar is too much in love with his own material it is overlong. Some scenes are kitsch and on the soap level, including the acting (Adela's love life, Isabel's doctor). The shoe-theme is exaggerated and is a weak metaphor.This is often compared to Magnolia because the structure is the same. But they are different. Magnolia is more technically competent, but somewhat mechanical. This has more the ability to translate emotion and atmosphere visually. After seeing this, you are inclined to immediately move to the new movie-city: Madrid. | 1 |
train_9299 | Loopy, but shrewd and formidable mob boss Vic (an excellent performance by Richard Dreyfuss) gets released from a mental hospital. Several of Vic's fellow criminal cohorts who include volatile henchman "Brass Balls" Ben London (a gloriously manic and over-the-top hammy portrayal by Gabriel Byrne), the smarmy Jake Parker (a perfectly smug Kyle MacLachlan), and vicious rival "Wacky" Jacky Jackson (a neat turn by Burt Reynolds) all try to bump Vic off. Meanwhile, laid-back and self-assured hit-man Mickey Holliday (nicely played with low-key confidence by Jeff Goldblum) finds himself caught in the middle of all this deadly lunacy. Writer/director Larry Bishop brings a supremely hip, quirky, and original idiosyncratic sensibility to this deliciously dark and deadpan pitch-black comedy about betrayal, loyalty, and ruthless ambition run dangerously amok. The bang-up cast have a field day with the colorfully grotesque rogues' gallery of blithely amoral and treacherous hoodlums: Ellen Barkin as tough, sultry moll Rita Everly, Henry Silva as Vic's reliable right-hand man Sleepy Joe Carisle, Gregory Hines as philosophical smoothie Jules Flamingo, Diane Lane as Vic's sweet, perky mistress Grace, Billy Drago as the slimy Wells, and Christopher Jones as brutish rub-out artist Nicholas Falco. Bishop makes the most of his juicy secondary role as lethal and laconic ace assassin Nick. Popping up in nifty bits are Billy Idol as a blustery thug, Michael J. Pollard as the ill-fated Red, Joey Bishop as mortician Mr. Gottlieb, Rob Reiner as a jolly chauffeur, and Richard Pryor as Jimmy the Gravedigger. Byrne's delightfully insane duet with singer Paul Anka on "My Way" rates as a definite sidesplitting highlight. A tense and amusing climactic Mexican stand-off likewise tickles the funny bone something hysterical. Frank Byers' slick cinematography, the outrageously nutty dialogue, Earl Rose's jazzy cocktail lounge score, and a choice soundtrack of vintage swinging golden oldies all further enhance the engagingly peculiar charm of this immensely entertaining one-of-a-kind curio. | 1 |
train_3411 | This is easily a 9. Michel Serrault, known more for comic roles in the earlier part of his acting career, does a stunning, even worryingly stunning job of impersonating Dr Petiot, a legendary French serial killer.He is just so believable at every and any moment in the film, that the actor completely disappears behind the character - only the very best ever achieve this feat, and when they do it is only in a handful of parts at best.The whole story (a real story which happened in 20th century France) is so powerful, so sinister - it makes for a very strong film that one remembers for a long, long time. | 1 |
train_19272 | So, back when Herbie made his first appearance, I was perfectly happy watching Dean Jones mug away. I only wanted to be entertained for a few hours and eat overly buttered popcorn. Now, unfortunately, I have expectations of a riveting/delightful story whenever I watch a movie, if I'm not on some sort of medication. And this is another good movie for the medicated. There are no major laughs, no complex plot lines, no difficult twists. Herbie Fully Loaded is great for the fully loaded.This was the first time I had seen La Lohan on the screen since she swapped places with Jamie Lee Curtis (I thought she was excellent in that), and I can't say I was terribly impressed this time around. Aside from her constantly changing and distractingly unnatural hair color, she just didn't ring true as the kid next door who had spent a lifetime hanging around road racers. Her 'need for speed' wasn't portrayed consistently in the film - perhaps it was elsewhere - she looked older than her part, and seemed to always be looking for something (a party? designer togs? new place to spend money?) off set. I couldn't see any chemistry with Justin Long; that romance seemed obligatory at best. The only time Lindsay appeared engaged was when she was interacting with Matt Dillon, who I thought was appropriately over the top as Evil Bad Guy Trip Murphy.It was great to see Herbie again, and I loved the movie intro with material from the old movies. If Disney had popped out with some Car 53 jewelry, I might have worn some just to be loyal. His new feature (?) was a little inconsistent (does he channel the thoughts of his driver? Does he now skateboard?) but whatever. We all knew how it was going to end, but I do wish he had ended up with someone a little less dopey than Maggie. And my head still hurts from that lesson Maggie and we viewers had hammered home. What would have made the movie worthwhile? Have the old Herbie in a real story with a real plot - at the very least, Herbie's as good as Lassie - but clearly that's asking too much. Why is it that Disney always goes back to the same well as "Herbie Goes Bananas" and "the Computer That Wore Tennis Shoes" when it comes to innovation? I'm sure this was a great movie for kids and those with no expectations. For the rest of us....it's for when you have the 'flu and just can't take the suspense of Rear Window. | 0 |
train_14740 | The "saucy" misadventures of four au pairs who arrive in London on the same day in the early 1970s. There's a Swedish girl, a Danish, a German and a Chinese. The story contrives to get the clothes off all of them, involve them in some Carry On-type humour and couple them with various misfits from the British film and TV culture of the time, including Man About the House star Richard O'Sullivan, future Coronation Street rogue Johnny Briggs and horror film stalwart Ferdy Mayne (playing a sheik). There's a pretty risqué amount of female nudity on display, for those who like that kind of thing (but obviously nothing hardcore).Most of the film is pretty thin and inconsequential; the girls are stereotypes, and German Anita especially suffers from some kind of infantalising disorder - she's a moron obsessed with colour TV who acts like a kind of uninhibited child & dresses to deliberately show her private parts; in another more serious film, she would be a psychiatric case. The most interesting section of the film involves the Swedish girl being taken to a club in London where some dodgy types are still trying to swing, being seduced by a middle-aged rocker, losing her virginity and realising that the scene is not for her. These sequences have some energy in them and point to a more intriguing film than we've ended up with, in which promiscuity and the dregs of the music business and upper classes live soulless and seedy lives (there's a fine turn by John Standing as an impotent public school roué). The strangest of the stories has the Chinese girl (future cannibal film veteran Me Me Lay) getting off with her childish piano prodigy employer, falling mutually in love with and then leaving in the middle of the night for no good reason at all, except some orientalist notion that "Chinese birds are inscrutable, ain't they?!" The film is pretty demeaning to its women characters and there's a smattering of homophobia in the dialogue and one of the characterisations. The end is striking, as Mayne's sheik for no earthly reason (except they have to end the film somehow) whisks all of the girls away to his Arab kingdom for what looks to all the world like a future in the white slave trade, which they are all delighted about.Stuff and nonsense for the most part then, but directed with a fair amount of skill by veteran Val Guest, which puts it as a piece of film-making a notch above most of the 70s Brit sexploitation flicks. | 0 |
train_11053 | I wasn't born until 4 years after this wonderful show first aired but luckily I managed to catch the reruns of the mid 90's and the rest is history......I was hooked. The premise was pretty simple; two hardened Nemesis agents, Richard Barrett and Craig Stirling ( William Gaunt and Stuart Damon) are partnered up with an expert (if not young) Doctor and Biologist (Sharron Macready) to head behind the bamboo curtain to retrieve a dangerous biological agent from being used by red china. Whilst making their escape, their plane is hit by machine gun fire and they crash in the heart of the Himalayas where their lives are saved by a mysterious and previously undiscovered civilisation who heal and enhance the senses of the trio, thus setting the scene for many exciting adventures to come...The series lasted for 30 hour long episodes and I guess it was its relatively short lived, one season run that has set it up for cult status.Monty Berman, the producer, was notorious for making things as cheaply as possible and sometimes the show suffered for this with incredibly tacky sets - particularly in Episodes such as "Happening" ( a studio deputising for the Australian outback) and the 'snow' sets of "Operation Deep Freeze" and "The Beginning" but if you can get past this, and focus on the characters and the story lines, the show was really a lot of fun. It had a great mix of adventure, and plenty of deadpan humour (mainly from some terrific one liners from William Gaunt).The chemistry from the three leads was fantastic - you get the sense that they were really having a lot of fun making the show and this is borne out in the 2005 reunion documentary where the three reunite after over 35 years to reminisce about the show (and laugh about Anthony Nicholls awful wig!!). They all shared equal screen time and all had their moments to shine. I have to say, I was always a Richard Barrett fan - I loved his sardonic humour along with that dangerous edge - he was certainly a man you didn't cross, and those eyes........the bluest eyes you would probably see on TV. I have also followed Bill Gaunts career with interest since. However, Craig Stirling certainly would have had his legion of female fans and I am sure Alexandra Bastedo had a whole queue of male fans swooning over her too.The show also had a plethora of guest stars to entice with, including Donald Sutherland, Jeremy Brett, Peter Wyngarde, Burt Kwouk, Anton Rodgers, Kate O'Mara, Jenny Linden, Paul Eddington and Colin Blakely.Notable episodes for me were : "Auto Kill", "The Interrogation", "The Fanatics", "The Mission" and "The Gilded Cage" but I am sure every one has their personal favourites.If you do get a chance to watch this show for the first time, or to re watch it after many years, remember to watch it in the context of the time it was made and just sit back and enjoy - the characters and the chemistry from the three leads is what made this wonderful show for me and I don't think I will ever tire of it.Enjoy! | 1 |
train_19903 | This was not the worst movie I've ever seen, but that's about as much as can be said about it. It starts off with some good atmosphere; the hospital is suitably sterile and alienating, the mood is set to "eerie". And then...nothing. Well, somethings. Just somethings that clearly don't fit in...and no effort is made to clarify the connection between the bizarre and yet not particularly intimidating critters, and the hospital they've taken over. I mean, come on, biker duds? Some band watched a bit too much Gwar.My personal favorite was the head demon, who looks rather a lot like a middle-aged trucker desperately attempting menace, while simultaneously looking like he'd really like prefer to sag down on an afghan-covered couch, undo his belt, pop a can of cheap beer (probably Schlitz), and watch the game. Honestly, I've seen far scarier truckers. At truckstops. Drinking coffee. WWWwoooooohHHHHHoooooooo!!!! Scary!!The other monsters are even more cartoonish, and even less scary. At least, on the DVD, the videos give some explanation of their presence in the hospital...they apparently just randomly pop up in places, play some bippy "metal", and cause people to be dead a bit. Barring a few good special effects, and acting that is not entirely terrible given a lack of decent writing, there's just nothing here. It's a background-noise movie only. | 0 |
train_9309 | dear god where do i begin. this is bar none the best movie i've ever seen. the camera angles are great but in my opinion the acting was the best. why the script writers for this movie aren't writing big budget films i will never understand. another is the cast. it is great. this is the best ted raimi film out there for sure. i know some of you out there are probably thinking "no way he has plenty better" but no your wrong. raptor island is a work of art. i hope it should have goten best movie of the year instead of that crappy movie Crash with a bunch of no names AND no raptors. i believe this movie is truly the most wonderful thing EVER. | 1 |
train_4760 | Well I gave this movie a 7. It was better than "Thirdspace" but not as good as "In the Beginning" as far as the B5 movies go. I really think the television series did a much better job overall with the special effects and character portrayal. Let's hope the producers and cast get the next series "Crusade" up to the standards of B5. | 1 |
train_12523 | I rented this one on DVD without any prior knowledge. I was suspicious seeing Michael Madsen appearing in a movie I have never heard of, but it was a freebie, so why not check it out.Well my guess is that Mr. Blonde would very much like to forget he's ever taken part in such a shame of a film.Apparently, if your script and dialogs are terrible, even good actors cannot save the day. Not to mention the amateur actors that flood this film. Too many non-native-English-speakers play parts of native-English-speakers, reading out lines from a script that should have been thrown away and not having been made into a movie. It's unbelievable how unbelievable all the lines in the movie sound. The music is awful and totally out of place, and the whole thing looks and sounds like a poor school play.I recommend you watch it just so you would appreciate other, better, movies. This is why I gave it a 3 instead of the 1 it deserves. | 0 |
train_24771 | Screenwriter Lisa Lutz began writing the screenplay at the age of 21 in 1991 Is she even in business? If someone gave her another chance after this piece of crap, she's up for the most Fortunate Person Of Ever award.This movie sucks to no END...It never ceases to amaze me what the turn into movies...and the fact that they made this writer put it off for a bit? Seriously? I can write better crap than this in my sleep.OK, so how many lines to I have to type? I don't get this at all. I guess I"m a newbie. I guess I don't understand why there should ever be a limit to what anyone has to say...or a quota? Seriously, I don't care if you have a one word sentence...or even a one word response. I mean, c'mon? Thanks...is this enough, finally?This movie is worthless. | 0 |
train_4830 | Despite some reviews being distinctly Luke-warm, I found the story totally engrossing and even if some critics have described the love story as 'Mills and Boon', so what? It is good to see a warm, touching story of real love in these cynical times. Many in the audience were sniffing and surreptitiously dabbing their eyes. You really believe that the young Victoria and Albert are passionately fond of each other, even though, for political reasons, it was an arranged marriage. I did feel though that Sir John Conroy, who was desperate to control the young Queen, is perhaps played too like a pantomime villain. As it is rumoured that he was in fact, the real father of Victoria (as a result of an affair with her mother The Duchess of Kent) it would have been interesting to explore this theory. Emily Blunt is totally convincing as the young Princess, trapped in the stifling palace with courtiers and politicians out to manipulate her. She brilliantly portrays the strength of character and determination that eventually made Victoria a great Queen of England, which prospered as never before, under her long reign. I believe word of mouth recommendations will ensure great success for this most enjoyable and wonderful looking movie. | 1 |
train_5800 | THIS IS BY FAR MY MOST FAVOURITE MOVIE IN THE WORLD!!!!! I enjoyed it when I was 4 and I still enjoy it at 16!! Its an absolute masterpiece! No video collection is complete without it!!! I enjoy every second of it and not only does the film have some great special affects but its sends a great message to the youngsters of the audience which may sound sheesy but in actual fact the movie is done very COOLY in actual fact! Although Michael Jackson has been in afew movies now, people still dont see him as an actor. In reality he's the most talented actor I know! He's so talented! He's incredible!!! MOONWALKER IS A MUST SEE!!!!!! | 1 |
train_7423 | I recently watched the '54 version of this film with Judy, and while i appreciated the story and music, i found that the film failed to hold my attention. I expected the '76 remake to be the same story, except with a Barbra twist. I was pleasantly surprised - it was a much more realistic and modern look at fame, money, love and the price of it all. This version is so much more real than the '54 one, with arguably better music, better acting, a more gripping plot line, and, of course, a deeper love. I do not understand why the previous film is on the American Film Institute's top 100 list, while this gripping remake fails to make a mark on any critic's list. | 1 |
train_16926 | I watched this movie just a little while ago and I found that this movie was terrible! It moved very slowly and was hardly entertaining!Sorry for all those that liked it.... this is only my opinion! | 0 |
train_5472 | Barbara Stanwyck as a real tough cookie, a waitress to the working classes (and prostitute at the hands of her father) who escapes to New York City and uses her feminine wiles to get a filing job, moving on to Mortgage and Escrow, and later as assistant secretary to the second in command at the bank. Dramatic study of a female character unafraid to be unseemly has lost none of its power over the years, with Barbara acting up a storm (portraying a woman who learns to be a first-rate actress herself). Parlaying a little Nietzschean philosophy into her messed up life, this lady crushes out sentiment all right, but she never loses our fascination, our awe. She's a plain-spoken, hard-boiled broad, but she's not a bitch, nor is she a man-eater or woman-hater. This gal is all out for herself, and as we wait for her to eventually learn about real values in life, her journey up and down the ladder of success provides heated, sexy entertainment. John Wayne (with thick black hair and too much eye make-up) does well in an early role as the assistant in the file office, though all the supporting players are quite good. *** from **** | 1 |
train_7426 | Considering 'A Star is Born' had been made twice already by the time the 1976 film came into production, the latest remake has a freshness about it that can be attributed to the fantastic chemistry between the entire acting ensemble. A viewer could be forgiven for believing that Kris Kristofferson & Barbara Streisand were a couple off screen as well as on, with their incredible displays of pure affection towards one another.The film has been described in the past as a 'Barbara Streisand concert on film, set to a soap opera storyline' however for anyone that enjoys watching a film that takes you beyond the living room into a world where the characters seem truly alive - A Star is Born is well worth the hiring price.With its incredible soundtrack, flawless acting and touching reality in regards to human emotions and the true frailty of life; A Star is Born is a film that draws you into the world of Esther Hoffman & the love of her life John Norman Howard.A film for anyone that sees the beauty in real love - the kind that keeps you devoted to a person even as they break your heart... | 1 |
train_6058 | This is a well-made documentary on the exciting world of Indy Car racing. The photography is simply outstanding. The scene were Mario Andretti drives the old racing roadster down the New England street lined with the ancient maples, leaves blown to the side by the speed of the car, is incredible. The film does lose some of its beauty on the small screen but if you like watching cars driven to their limit you should see this film. | 1 |
train_24845 | This movie starred a totally forgotten star from the 1930s, Jack Pearl (radio's "Baron Munchausen") as well as Jimmy Durante. However, 7-1/2 decades later, it's being billed as a Three Stooges film because they are the only ones in the film who the average person would recognize today. Film fanatics will also recognize the wonderful Edna May Oliver as well as Zazu Pitts.As for the Stooges, this is a film from there very early days--before MGM had any idea what to do with the team. At this point, they were known as "Ted Healy and his Stooges" as Healy was the front man. Fortunately for the Stooges, they soon left this nasty and rather untalented man (read up on him--you'll see what I mean) and the rest is history. Within a year, they were making very successful shorts for Columbia and executives at MGM were soon kicking themselves for losing the team. This sort of thing was a common occurrence at MGM, a great studio which had no idea what to do with comedy (such as the films of Buster Keaton, Laurel and Hardy, Abbott and Costello and others). In fact, up until they left for Columbia, MGM put them in a wide variety of odd film roles--including acting with Clark Gable and Joan Crawford in DANCING LADY. And, oddly, in this film they didn't act as a team--they just did various supporting roles, such as Larry playing the piano!This particular film begins with Pearl and Durante lost in the African jungle. When they are rescued and brought home, all sense of structure to the film falls apart and the film becomes almost like a variety show--punctuated by scenes with the leads here and there. As for Pearl, I could really see why he never made a successful transition to films, as he has the personality of a slug (but slightly less welcome). As for Durante, I never knew what the public saw in him--as least as far as his films are concerned--he was loud and...loud! He apparently took time off from helping MGM to ruin Buster Keaton's career to make this film. Together, Pearl and Durante rely on lots of verbal humor(?) and Vaudeville-style routines that tend to fall rather flat.In this film, the Stooges they didn't yet have the right chemistry. Seeing Healy doing the job that Moe did in their later films is odd. What they did in the film was pretty good, but because all the segments were short, they came on and off camera too quickly to allow them to really get into their routines. Stooges fans might be very frustrated at this, though die-hard fans may want to see this so that they can complete their life-long goal of seeing everything Stooge--even the rotten Joe DeRita and Joe Besser films (oh, and did they got bad after the deaths of Shemp and Curly).Overall, the film is rather dull and disappointing. However, there are a couple interesting things to look for in the mess. At about the 13 minute mark, you will see a brief scene where a tour guide on a bus is singing. Look carefully, as this is Walter Brennan in a role you'd certainly never expect! Another unusual thing to look for in the film is the "Clean as a Whistle" song starting at about 22 minutes into the film. This song and dance number is clearly an example of a so-called "Pre-Code" scene that never would have been allowed in films after 1934 (when the Production Code was strengthened). Despite the word "Clean" in the title, it's a very titillating number with naked women showing lots of flesh--enough to stimulate but not enough to really show anything! It's quite shocking when seen today, though such excesses were pretty common in the early 1930s. Finally, at the 63 minute mark, see Jimmy Durante set race relations back a few decades. See the film, you'll see that I mean! | 0 |
train_12195 | Any film in the early days of Orson Welles is a triumph all the way to The third Man with Joseph Cotton. He is also wonderful in a Touch Of Evil. Please see them all! He tends to get pompous and self serving in films like F is for Fake, really stupid waste of film.Don't waste your time watching it. it is really ignorant. Orson Welles is a film icon and anyone studying film should see everything he has filmed. All his leading ladies are tremendous but in the end Welles became a fat drunk, like his character in A Touch Of Evil! For some reason Orson Welles had a way with women, I see how he could be considered attractive in his youth, not like Gary Cooper or Joseph Cotton, or Cary Grant,John Wayne, I could go on and on but I digress... and because I am a woman,I can see the attraction to him. He (Orson Welles) is one of the last true film makers and unless you count the film-makers of today: Tarantino, Scorscese, Spike Lee, most of the film makers just don't measure up to the film makers of the Forties! I know there are many more great film makers of today but in such a short amount of time I can't name them all. No Offense to any of the great film makers of this millennium! August 21,2006. Please remind me of some current up and coming film makers, I don't want to be stuck in the past! I love some of the films out now, but rarely are there any that I would put on a "100 best" list.. "Hustle and Flow" was great, so was "Fargo", and "Oh, Brother, where art thou," from a line in Sullivan's travels; another fine film from the forties! Can anyone give me a best list for the 90's and on up to 2006? I would like to know who to watch! Thank you! Also Props to this website! Where else can you plug a film or boo it! i love the ranting and raving from regular folks like me who can say what I want and I promise not to spoil any film for someone who hasn't seen it yet! | 1 |
train_2575 | I rented this film from Netflix for two reasons - I was in the mood for what I thought would be a silly '50s sci-fi-asco and because it is the first feature-length Superman film. Needless to say, after about 15 minutes I found myself thoroughly engaged and very pleasantly surprised.An experimental oil well has penetrated about six miles into the earth and is being shut down by the sponsor. Lois and Clark show up to get the scoop but are disappointed that the deepest well ever drilled will no longer be in operation. A day later, strange events at the well make for a story more appropriate for Superman than Clark Kent. It seems that the radioactive Mole Men have invaded from their six-mile deep home near the earth's core.Supermen and the Mole Men is a simplistic but well-made piece of social realism. Released in 1951, starring a lead actor who served in World War II, the moral of the story seems to be that Americans are just as capable of becoming fascists as anybody else. To drive this point home in a typically straightforward Superman manner, Reeves even accuses the lynch mob hunting the Mole Men of being 'Nazis' at one point.Even in the 1950s, the science underlying this film was nonexistent. Six miles of drilling through continental crust would not have even penetrated the upper mantle, let alone the "hollow center of the earth" - which, in any case does not exist. Forgivable - keep in mind that this film is based on a golden age comic book.The film is a little unevenly paced. Although the Molemen are interesting, a bit creepy, and nicely portrayed, there are several Corman-esquire scenes which spend too much time redundantly showing us their odd behavior. The script is intelligent and economical. By today's standards, the costuming is poor to fair, but for its time, this film's special effects and costuming were quite good. The cinematography is also generally very good, and the acting is much better than one might expect. I was particularly impressed with Reeves, Jeff Corey and Walter Reed. | 1 |
train_2375 | i honestly think that that was the best version of war of the worlds i've every seen. it was funny but it was also educational i learned whole lot the movie and if i could i would by that movie. my favorite part was when the soldiers killed on robot and another one came right from behind it. in the last movie war of the world i think that it should have been more like the first one and it would have been better. but any way i give this movie 2 thumbs up. and if they where to make another movie like this i will definitely watch it.thank you | 1 |
train_5952 | This movie is humorous, charming, and easily becomes a favorite for those who enjoy light entertainment. Hollywood is hardly the place for serious history lessons so I simply accept it as is. Bing, in his usual inimitable style, performs quite well as the blacksmith, Hank Martin, who by accident is transported back to another age, the time of King Arthur. The beautiful Rhonda Fleming is breathtaking as Alisande, or Sandy, the object of Hank's affections although she is betrothed to the brave and formidable Sir Lancelot, played by Henry Wilcoxon.I just love that episode when King Arthur (Cedric Hardwicke), Sir Sagramore (Wm. Bendix), and Hank (Bing Crosby) dress up in tattered clothing and take to the high road with their knapsacks to experience the kingdom at firsthand. King Arthur's comment, "I say, we are not alone" while giving his scruffy garments a good scratch, is one of those hilarious moments in the film. William Bendix's portrayal is superbly ridiculous, not to mention his attempts at quaint "ye Olde English." The story is not deep but it's well done in my opinion and I enjoy it more each time I see it. It's great family entertainment too. | 1 |
train_1903 | Ok, even if you can't stand Liza- this movie is truly hilarious! The scenes with John Gielgud make up for Liza. One of the true romantic comedy classics from the 20th century. Dudley Moore makes being drunk and irresponsible look cute and amusing and it is damn fun to watch! The one-liners are the best. | 1 |
train_19308 | What a complete piece of trash. Plot notwithstanding, when a movie's action revolves around airplanes, you'd think the writers/producers/director (or ANYONE!) would do a little bit of homework as to at least a FEW of the details. The mistakes were so glaring that I was fuming by the end of the movie. Here are just a few: I'm glad I missed the SR-71 sequence - certain to have been worse than the "Air Force One" F-117 spectacle. Commercial airlines usually have their logos painted on the aircraft rather than BOEING 747 likely the (cheap) use of some Boeing advertising/publicity footage by the director. Exposed wiring connected by wire nuts is mediocre at best for house wiring, much less multi-million dollar aircraft avionics wiring. Airplanes like the 747 rely on pressure alone rather than ship's supply oxygen to maintain breathable air, and if they did rely on an on-board supply, the canister would be far bigger than fist sized. Medical tape is not a suitable substitute for a threaded hose connection. Those were F-16s, NOT F-15s. Mach 1+ (speed of sound) would be difficult to attain on a static engine run up for takeoff (watch the airspeed indicator). "Standard formation" is simply keeping the formation inside one nautical mile, "route" formation is what they were flying - not the most useful formation for an intercept. "Acquiring missile lock" is not likely to get an airline pilot's attention - they have no radar detection or countermeasures. "Wait for my signal" is not inter-flight communication for preparing to fire anything. Depressurization from a door opening in flight is not grounds for an immediate steep left bank. Yelling into a headset does not make it transmit. Magnetic headings are given as "headings" not "bearings," and headings are between 001 and 360 degrees (compasses in the air are just like compasses on the ground!), so turning left (not "port" that's a boat thing) from a "bearing" of 618 to 502 is just stupid. It is in most cases impossible to just "turn the yoke left until the correct heading is reached" that sort of thing will result in 360 degree rolls until the yoke is centered again. The likelihood of a flight attendant immediately finding and successfully engaging the autopilot is only slightly greater than the likelihood of her actually landing the jet safely. Airplanes don't stall immediately upon pulling the throttle back, and 747s have more than one little lever to control the multi-engine thrust. Flaps are lowered in increments usually just prior to and immediately following landing gear extension, not seconds before landing (good way to crash). Wheel brakes are required to stop an airplane, simply pulling the throttle(s) (this time a different lever in the movie) to idle will just allow you to go off the end of the runway at a slower speed. Did I mention that those fighter aircraft were F-16s and NOT F-15s? Guess I did
And that's just what I REMEMBER from recently watching this horrific movie. | 0 |
train_3334 | I really liked this movie because I have a husband just like the guy in this movie. This movie is about Lindsey who meets Ben in the middle of winter when baseball season isn't in. She falls in love but when spring comes along, she gets the shock of her life when she is placed one step lower on her pedestal that Ben has put her on.It's a funny movie with all of the baseball obsession that Ben has. He can't part from what he loves the most, that's what makes it so funny and why so many women can relate to Lindsey in real life. Also the people he sits with at the baseball games are just as obsessed as he is.It's a funny movie and you won't strike out if you rent this one. | 1 |
train_16685 | I give this movie a 3 as it is worse than the cult movies that deserve a proper 2. It does not make sense to you? Well, it doesn't have to. This is another vampire movie with a stupid plot, no, let me rephrase, incredibly idiotic plot, where space cowboys (complete with cowboy hats) battle a space race of moron vampires.Does it get any uglier than this? The only good thing in this movie was Natassia Malthe, with her stunning Norwegian beauty. God, I wish Michael Ironside and the DeLuise brothers would stop accepting dumb roles in dumb movies! I mean, at least SeaQuest was nice! I know Mr. Ironside from a lot of movies, he has acted in 164 movies at this date!! It's true that he was rarely in a major role, but still! | 0 |
train_23325 | What made the idea of seeing this movie so attractive was the hope that it would live up to Charlotte Bronte's brilliance of the original classic story. I was deeply disappointed to find that this movie, which seemed to be either written or filmed in great haste, had not the qualities that made the original novel so powerful. Much of the witty back and forth between the main characters, Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester, seemed to be either missing from the screenplay or left on the cutting room floor. Also missing was Jane Eyre's charismatic sense of self, which enabled her to suffer through her turmoil and triumph over all. The original Jane Eyre was a hero. The woman in this movie did not seem to have much to triumph over, including one of the greatest parts of the story when Jane runs away from Thornfield and Mr. Rochester. Her struggle to find food and shelter, her shame at having to beg for bread, the threat of freezing to death in the cold, all to get away from a man she loved were, in my opinion, poignant parts of the story that were simply left out of this movie. The title character seemed dry and uninspired. The story was unappealing and for those who did not read the book, I cannot imagine that this story would be the least bit interesting. The screenplay and Direction did little if any credit to the classic story. | 0 |
train_22738 | This movie looked as if it might be good at the beginning, but never fleshed out to it's expectations. The director is talented and has some good camera angles and artistic ideas (typical of the Asian directors), but doesn't know how to create or tell a good story to go along with it. The story was fragmented and seemed to go off in all sorts of different directions throughout the film, never finding a solid, explainable, interesting angle. Basically, the movie never fit the explanation on the press releases. The acting was very good, however. All the actors gave good performances, and Jude Law was outstanding as he is always is. It is too bad he chose to do such a weak film. | 0 |
train_19107 | Not as bad as some are making it out to be, though obviously pathetic compared to the original. In my opinion Amitabh was great as the villain Babban Singh - try not to compare to Gabbar in the original as they were clearly not going for the same effect. Other than some mediocre action scenes however, the rest of the film is flawed. Character development was poor and the development of the story was hopeless, with many loopholes, and missing pieces of information which i wouldn't have known if i hadn't read the back of the DVD case. The worst part of the movie was the support roles from Nisha Kothari and especially this new dude called Prashant Raj. Nisha is just plain annoying from the time her lips first open. As for Prashant Raj - seriously who is this guy? where is he from and why on earth was he present in the film studio for anything other than to serve drinks?. His acting ability is zero and he has the same tone, dialog delivery and staunch expression in every scene, whether it be action, comedy, or even a scene when someone has just died. Ajay Devgan was average, at least his expressions changed which is more than i can say for his mistake of a companion. overall, RGV's Aag is worth watching for Amitabh's solid performance, and also a very sexy Urmilla Matondkar in a special appearance. | 0 |
train_8563 | The movie follows the events of the novel "Cel mai iubit dintre pamanteni"( could be translated as "The most beloved among humans" ), written by Marin Preda ( a very controversial book and movie), a novel which became something like The Bible or the story of Hamlet, very popular and hard to get, due to its satiric contents over the Communist regime. It represents the drama of the intellectual man, the humanist, in a "red" world. A movie filled with passion, fear, sexuality, all the great ingredients for a great movie recipe.One of the greatest Romanian movies,despite its psychological charge(after all, it is an European movie). | 1 |
train_15424 | There was something here with the female lead having this perfect life she's always wanted after the worst life possible, beginning as a child prostitute and winding up with Eric Roberts. But her background makes it impossible for her to trust Dean Cain and this utterly destroys it in the end. It sounds weird, but I like the position Dean Cain was in at the end and the choice he made. He can't hurt her because he loves her and she's the mother of his child (I think the time frame makes it clear it's his child and not his brother's), but at the same he can't forgive her for all she's done, sleeping with his brother (which shows the love and obligation he felt was pretty much one way) and then being part of his death. In better hands this would have been a better movie, but for something I caught on late night cable, it's not bad. | 0 |
train_4948 | This is a splendidly done simplistic film that explores a theme, and gives each viewer something different that they take from it. The premise is simple: an unnamed celebrity actor (Morgan Freeman) decides to research for an upcoming role by visiting a store and watching people. He takes particular interest in the cashier at the "10 Items or Less" lane (Paz Vega), who he finds an amiable, strong, and curious presence.Both actors play off each other brilliantly and bring solid dimension to characters in what is a character study. Not a conventional character study; they each represent entire worlds. The cashier's life is mired in a harsh and frustrating "real world," while the actor is so enmeshed in his fantasy existence that he can't do simple tasks like remember phone numbers. He readily admits he's putting on a face when he talks to people, and the whole point of researching real people shows he's not one of them.But not only is the actor inspired by real people for his work; we see the reverse process as well. Several characters recognize "Him," and make reference to how he has inspired them with his movie roles.The cashier's favorite song "Al Pasar la Barca," about how a girl refuses to hide behind beauty and prefers instead to pay (ie: do honest work) for boat passage, couldn't have been chosen better. It parallels with the Vega character, the only store employee with any brains or ambition, who is willing to work hard to succeed. (That's quite an aspiration, for somebody who looks like Paz Vega.) It's an odd little film, probably made on a shoestring. If you don't mind slow pacing and a "talky" approach, this film will entertain. The characters are perfectly contrasted, and the effective acting makes them endearing. A nice watch. | 1 |
train_15469 | The story is very trustworthy and powerful. The technical side of the movie is quite fine.. even the directing of it. The main problem is with the castings, that turned that movie into almost another local and regular cliché with a great lack of impact and even greater lack of impression. Beside the small role of the father, Rafael (played impressively by Asi Dayan), all other actors were unfortunately not in their best. The role of the elder Blind girl, played by Taly Sharon, was fresh but without any intensity as the leading role. therefore the figure she acted had become mild and low profile. There were moments and episodes that looked more like a rehearsal then a real movie. But after all it's a good point to begin from and to make big improvements in the future. | 0 |
train_12670 | Viewers gushing over everything including the title sequence (now THAT is funny) would have us believe this is some sort of cinematic miracle, but, trust me folks, this is one of the most embarrassingly bad films you could ever see, and if you're not laughing at it five minutes in, I'd say you've lost your sense of humor.David Niven plays a doomed and bravado-besotted RAF pilot who somehow thinks it appropriate to engage an impressionable (female) air traffic controller in an emotional conversation about love, just as he's plunging to his certain and fiery death. (Isn't it romantic...) Of course, he's spared by a quirk of metaphysical chance, and washes up on the beach, just as this same air traffic controller is riding by on her bicycle. (They immediately clinch).Looking past the bizarre homo-erotic subtexts, (so over the top you really need to refer to them as supertexts, from a naked boy sitting bare-butted in the sand playing the movie's twilight-zone-esquire theme on his little flute, to a celestial courier so campy/queen-y his makeup is caked on more thoroughly than the ladies'), the most bizarre aspects of the movie are how it weaves such bad caricatures of national and racial stereotypes into a convoluted attempt to argue some kind of point about the universal nature and power of love. We get it--fly boys like girls in skirts and heels, and girls like 'em back, and, apparently, all you have to do is cry a little to make it noble enough for your movie to get 10 stars on IMDb...As for the quality of the production, the continuity/editing is poor enough to induce cringing, and the lighting is, perhaps, even worse than that, but you hardly have time to notice because the script is so bad. There are games played with Technicolor, (whatever passes for heaven is in black and white if you can figure out the sense in that), and foreshadowing, (so funny my fellow audience member who usually like movies like this actually cheered and laughed when then the doc's motorcycle finally ended up in a fiery wreck), and freeze-motion, (which is funniest of all because the female lead is so poor at standing still you know the stage hands were guffawing off camera).The best shots are the early ones on the beach, but, after that, it's all downhill. The (moving like an escalator is moving) staircase is hardly the Odessa Steps, to say the least, and I'd really caution anyone from feeling like they'd have to see this lame attempt at movie-making on their account. The movie overall is bad enough to be funny, and that's about the best thing I can say for it. | 0 |
train_24594 | This movie purports to be a character study of perversion. Some reviewers have been gulled into assuming that because perversion is depicted, the film is psychologically deep; actually, considering the salacious material, it is surprisingly tedious and shallow, with no motivational substance. Why is the main character the way she is? You won't find out from the script. For a better treatment of the same theme (and a more entertaining movie), try Bunuel's Belle de Jour. | 0 |
train_24028 | Whoever wrote the "nice" post about this must have been a friend of these guys. This is bad even for backyard wrestling. In fact this isn't even backyard wrestling really, it's a few guys hitting each other on a trampoline. Each guys is about 45 lbs wet and there is not one ounce of entertainment value in this. It is just a few bored kids that even give yard tards a bad name, if that is possible. If you want to see some entertaining backyard wrestling, pick up Backyard Wrestling A Pleasure for Pain. It stars the 2 biggest names in BYW, MDogg20 and Josh Prohibition. These guys are good. They have actually went since yarding it and gotten professionally trained as "real" pro wrestlers. They went legit and have gotten better. I recommend checking out those 2 guys. MDogg is insane and off the hook. So don't waste your time or your cash on this crappy DVD, there are "better" back yard videos out there. | 0 |
train_49 | If you "get it", it's magnificent.If you don't, it's decent.Please understand that "getting it" does not necessarily mean you've gone through a school shooting. There is so much more to this movie that, at times, the school shooting becomes insignificant.Above all, it's a movie about acceptance, both superficially--of a traumatic event, but also of people who are different for whatever reason.It's also a movie about unendurable pain, and how different people endure it. In this case, the contrast between Alicia's rage and Deanna's obsession creates an atmosphere of such palpable anxiety that halfway through the movie we wonder how the director could possibly pull a happy ending out of his hat. Thankfully, the audience is given credit for being human beings; our intelligence is not insulted by a sappy, implausibly moralistic ending.Above and beyond that, I try to keep a clear head about movies being fiction and all that. Yet I must admit, I cried like a lost little baby during this movie. There were certain things about it that hit *very* close to home and opened up some old wounds that never quite healed. But that is not necessarily a bad thing. | 1 |
train_24791 | Humm, an Italian movie starred by David hasselhoff and Linda Blair, I wasn´t expecting very much, to be honest and in fact, I took even less than I was expecting. It doesn´t mean this movie is the worst I have seen because I have watched worse things than this but the plot was most of the times confusing and uninteresting and some good gore scenes are the only thing saving this. Apart from that you are going to love some special effects, they are really cheesy and bad. Now I only want to watch "Troll 3" by this same director, sure it is not going to be worse than that. | 0 |
train_9909 | A serious comedy. Ross Hunter-produced movie version of the French play "Les Joies de la famille" (later Americanized as "A Very Rich Woman") is plush, well cast, occasionally funny...and unfortunately timeless. A wealthy California widow, who appears to be frittering away her money, is railroaded by her two grown, greedy daughters, both of whom are afraid Mama Rosie is carelessly spending their inheritance. The whole issue of a vital--but aged--woman sent to a rest home against her will, and later having to prove herself sane in a court hearing, is touchy material for a comedy (and to his credit, director David Lowell Rich doesn't overload the picture with crass gags or obvious sentiment). Some of the humor is a little broad and doesn't work, yet Rosalind Russell understands the gravity inherent in this scenario and never hits a false note. Sandra Dee is also good as Rosalind's granddaughter, and James Farentino is very charming as a young lawyer. The movie has so much to say about the importance of our elderly, and the ways in which they choose to spend their remaining time, that the seriousness of "Rosie!"'s theme almost gets lost in the rush to a happy ending. The picture leaves you smiling--and at the same time wondering how many older ladies there are who were never quite so lucky. *** from **** | 1 |
train_16288 | There is a lot to like here. The actors are first rate and the script provides good dialog best capturing the ambiance of a tightly knit, likable family. However, for that reason the film does not ring true. We see Leo, who apparently just learned of his HIV positive diagnosis, essentially react in a way that is not in tune to the supportive atmosphere for which he finds himself. As well, the film ends somewhat abruptly avoiding what Leo, his brother and the rest of this close family must have dealt with in light of their love for him. The young actor who plays Leo's brother, Marcel, is impressive as generally is the rest of the cast. Unfortunately, the scriptwriters could not decide onwhether they wanted an insightful dissertation on the effects of HIV on a functional, appealing family or what the devastation HIV is on the victim - so it only hints at both. While this film provides food for thought it leaves the viewer wanting much more than it delivers. | 0 |
train_3868 | A masterpiece.Thus it is, possibly, not for everyone.The camera work, acting, directing and everything else is unique, original, superb in every way - and very different from the trash we are sadly used to getting.Summer Phoenix creates a deep, believable and intriguing Esther Kahn. As everything else in this film, her acting is unique - it is completely her own - neither "British" nor "American" nor anything else I have ever seen. There is something mesmerizing about it.The lengthy, unbroken, natural shots are wonderful, reminding us that we have become too accustomed to a few restricted ways of shooting and editing. | 1 |
train_12639 | This movie was rented by a friend. Her choice is normally good. I read the cover first and was expecting a good movie. Although itwas a horror movie. Which i don't prefer. But no horror came to mind while watching the movie. It was a dull,not very entertaining movie. The appearance of Denise Richardswas again a pleasure for the eye. But that's it. We (the four of us)we're a little bit disappointed. But feel free to see this movie andjudge it yourself. | 0 |
train_20824 | First of all, the big named actors must need the money... The surgical scenes were laughable.... and surely they must know that people who have a little knowledge of medicine would find this utterly absurd......Anesthesiologists do not leave the room during a heart transplant....nor do they do the surgery in a tiny room devoid of instruments, heart lung equipment and sterile techniques... just a joke... couldn't concentrate on the story line because of all the stupid surgery scenes... no blood, no personnel and then the hero doc coming in and taking over... it is not a film for thinking adults....Also the budget must have been limited... the street scenes were OK but who was the technical adviser....Seems like it was directed by a total idiot.. Save your money and wait until it comes out on DVD and Don't rent it.. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.