text
stringlengths 49
6.21k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
I saw this movie with a friend who ran a marathon with me, and we both had the same feeling about it: it wasn't terribly motivating, and didn't even broach the idea of what a training schedule would look like, so that non-marathoners could have an idea of what it would take for them to train and run one. In fact there was almost zero technical information at all. I didn't expect this to be a tech-heavy instructional video, but when that info was near zero then the film just wasn't balanced, and wasn't particularly useful to non-marathoners contemplating their first run.<br /><br />There were other problems. Some of the very first images were people collapsing near death while trying to run a race. Yeah, real inspiring. The timing was also hard to follow, because it was semi chronological, but the filmmakers rarely gave you any good clues as to what point in time you were looking at. And they withheld information. You see that Kantor has an injury, and you just assume it's from all her training, but then several scenes later they finally clue you in that it's because she tripped over a pine cone in her yard.<br /><br />Some parts were very good, though, like the bit about a woman defying race officials who wanted the run to be men-only, and the coverage of a Chicago race where two of the runners portrayed earlier were vying for first place.<br /><br />Off the top of my head, I'm thinking of other chronological documentaries, like Supersize Me, and Grass, where you always know where you are, and you feel like they told you everything you wanted to know.<br /><br />In short, it wouldn't have been hard to make a better marathon film, and as it stands I can't recommend this to non-marathoners to educate and motivate them to try one, because I don't think it will have that effect.
| 0 |
negative
|
This was a great movie for being only 67 minutes long. There was an aspect of film-noir contained in this movie and I am glad that Nolan picked to film it in black and white. The plot is simple yet entertaining that keeps you engaged. Even the dialogue was good along with the acting. It reminded me of what was to come in Memento by not being in chronological order. I liked how the main character tried to use what Cobb taught him for example saying "everyone has a box" which he put his personal things into. Also, on the writer's door was the batman logo which seemed ironic because Christopher Nolan would later direct Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, two other great movies. There is a great twist in the end which I'm not going to spoil for anyone who hasn't seen it, even though I kind of figured what would happen when Cobb gave the young man D Lloyds credit card. I also liked how the writer had a copy of The Republic by Plato one of my favorite philosophical books. This is definitely a movie you need to watch more than once to get the full aspect of it, plus it only being an hour long. There is also a circular aspect to it by ending where it began which I thought was pretty brilliant.
| 1 |
positive
|
I am not sure who is having more fun, the people that wrote the reviews or the director of the movie. I could not go any longer reading this comments or watching this movie, I had to say something.<br /><br />I can see a low budget western film that is done with passion and interest on the detail, but using a garage with art deco lettering, pastel colors, actors that seem to be falling sleep because the script is so boring and the boom getting on the way of the camera every two scenes, that is definitely not my definition of "one of the best western movies produced in the new Millennium".<br /><br />Please if any of you guys had friends in the movie just say it!
| 0 |
negative
|
Long before Terri Schiavo brought the issue of living as a "vegetable" to the public view, "A Day in the Death of Joe Egg" dealt with it. Alan Bates plays Bri, a schoolteacher whose daughter is almost completely brindled. He and his wife Sheila (Janet Suzman) try all sorts of dark humor to try and get on with their lives, but they can't escape the facts. At one point, they even consider euthanasia. The question circling them and their friends is: what will ever become of this predicament? <br /><br />With this movie, Alan Bates continued his streak of really good movies, preceded by "Zorba the Greek", "The King of Hearts" and "The Fixer". We can safely say that he will be sadly missed.
| 1 |
positive
|
Let's get one thing straight, this gets an 7 out of 10 not on a normal scale, but out of the bad movie scale. this is the kind of movie you rent on purpose, where you intentionally walk in knowing that it is a horrendous knockoff and shun'd by everyone else. <br /><br />I went in with one promise from the movie, that there will be snakes on a train, and it Delivers! <br /><br />The gore itself is really good, and the characters have awesome roles. Come on, it has everything from stoned train pilots to teenage girls trafficking drugs, even a Electrical Engineer getting his pimp on! You get to see some topless nudity, explosions, snakes, gore, and a Mexican main lead running around curing his girlfriend by hitting his crack pipe and blowing the smoke in her face!! As I mentioned and many others have, the movie pacing is a bit off, but respectable nonetheless. <br /><br />Movies like this keep our group tradition of banding together and all chipping in a buck or two to watch masterpieces such as this. There can be no better time spent then coming together to enjoy a good bad movie. <br /><br />It could learn a thing or two from the likes of other such fine flicks as Alien Lock-down or Boa vs Python, but those are some big shoes to fill. <br /><br />A solid 7 out of 10.
| 1 |
positive
|
If I look hard enough, flaws can be found in this film, primarily with the script. I found the character of Wolf not totally convincing. However, those were my only "complaints." Because when this movie started on Cable, I was just going to record it and watch it later. However, from the beginning, with the eerie music and Cameron Diaz doing her spaced out 60's dance, I was riveted. I never got up until the movie was over. It seemed like I never even blinked.<br /><br />The acting of Cameron Diaz and Jordana Brewster was excellent. The scenes were beautiful, the girls were beautiful, and the music was haunting and very touching. The story was quite unique and at times had a surreal quality. The viewer would tend to like the picture more if they had a good understanding of the state of mind of young people in the 60's and 70's, especially in America. Many of the scenes basically succeeded in showing something of that era that is hard to pin down. It was a bit more complicated than the simplistic statement that they wanted to change the world and ended up disillusioned, although that may be the most obvious aspect. Phoebe learns more and more about this as the movie progresses.<br /><br />One aspect that didn't seem to be covered by the other reviewers that might bear mentioning, is the way the two daughters seem to drift through life after the death of their father. They both had adored him, and his presence had been a stabilizing factor in their lives and obviously he had loved them dearly. We read so much today about boys who lose their fathers too soon, only to lose their way themselves. This film covers the ripple effect of the loss of the father on the daughters left behind, first on the older sister Faith, then on to her younger sister. Their mother feels inadequate to try to be both parents. This type of dynamic is not covered in hardly any other movies, especially in so many different layers of plot and subplot. Phoebe's inner struggles of reality versus perceptions are gradually peeled away like layers of an onion.<br /><br />Speaking of plot, this movie should rate higher than it has here. I kept waiting for some great conspiracy to be found out concerning the death of Faith. How it did resolve itself surprised me, even if others may have guessed much sooner.<br /><br />Maybe not for everybody, but I could watch this movie many, many times.
| 1 |
positive
|
I have read all of the reviews for this direct to video movie. I can agree that the movie is not "Armageddon" or "Deep Impact" quality. Nevertheless, if you are looking for a way to pass ninety minutes or so, then this is a movie that is bearable.<br /><br />I started looking at the film early in the AM hours as I was doing some geek stuff. It was very nice, because I was able to switch back and forth between what I was doing and watching the movie, with out missing a beat. It is a predictable movie, and the acting is not up to par for some of the veteran actors (for instance, Dennis Hopper).<br /><br />But I should point out that I paid only $2 (US) and as the old adage goes: You get what you pay for! If you are looking for some deep meaning movie that will have you have to watching it over and over again, then this is definitely the long video. On the other hand, if you looking for something to pass the time, then there is nothing wrong with Tycus (Which incidentally was called "Comet: Final Impact" in Mexico where I found this video).
| 0 |
negative
|
I was very impressed with this film from newcomer Dir./Writer Jose Reyes. The cast was excellent. "Jorge Cordoba" executed a powerful<br /><br />and shocking performance as the lead character of "Rafa". It's inspiring to see independent films with this level of talent. <br /><br />It takes talent, courage, and determination to go out and make a quality film.<br /><br />I admire anyone who can take an idea from concept to conception and go the mile. <br /><br />It's easy for people to judge young filmmakers more harshly, but I applaud "Jose Reyes" <br /><br />and the talented cast for their successful efforts.
| 1 |
positive
|
Directed and written by the famous/infamous Edward D. Wood Jr, using a pseudonym(Daniel Davis)playing the lead role of Glen/Glenda. This is an almost radical documentary about transvestism; Wood himself being a transvestite with a fetish for angora sweaters. It seems miles of stock footage and an incoherent Bela Lugosi is used to stretch this odd and awkward film to 67 minutes. Police inspector(Lyle Talbot)seeks enlightenment from a psychiatrist, Dr. Alton(Timothy Farrell), to better understand the emotional and disposition of transvestites.<br /><br />Also in the cast: Delores Fuller, "Tommy" Hanes, Captain DeZita and Wood's sister Evelyn. Of note: Farrell also acts as narrator. And Fuller later helped write songs included in the Elvis Presley movies BLUE HAWAII, KISSIN' COUSINS & KID GALAHAD.
| 0 |
negative
|
The Lubitsch's Touch is more than ever in this film. Humour at anytime and very subtle. The plot is simple but turned in a delicious way by the director. The film cut is very clever and add to the comic effect. A real piece of comedy that isn't getting so old for a XXIst century spectator. The character are finely acted by Gary Cooper and especially Claudette Colbert so smart and mean with this poor Micheal in the movie. She avoid every traps from her husband and turn the situation to her advantage, very funny. And no problem, with Lubitsch, there is always an Happy end. A film for men too confident with women. Don't let your girlfriend watch this movie...
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a thoughtful film that lays bare the inequities of the so-called upper class and those who work for them, the haves and have-nots. Robert Shaw does a creditable job in his role as the obliging, correct chauffeur, Steven Ledbetter, who helps Lady Franklin (Sarah Miles) overcome her mental depression at the outset. However, Steven has many mixed feelings regarding this lady of the upper class. He inevitably falls in love with her, which of course is overstepping the societal boundaries that separate them.<br /><br />I have not read anything prior to this and only judge the movie as I have seen it. I consider it a very honest story about the realities of daily living and the conflict of what we might wish or expect from life and what we get. It's a fine drama worth seeing again.
| 1 |
positive
|
I am definitely not a gamer, but a couple people in my family and my boyfriend are. So, a little reluctantly I decided to find out what the big deal was with "fantasy stuff". I saw Dorkness Rising and thought it was HILARIOUS! It's slapstick, but not disrespectful to those that enjoy role playing games. Also, and most importantly, people who've never gamed before can enjoy it and not feel left out or lost trying to understand the plot. The acting was great and the field shots/set were believable. This makes me want to see other movies by this production company. I can't wait to see what the future holds for this group! Three cheers - well done!!
| 1 |
positive
|
I can't help but be completely annoyed by this sitcom. It's like they didn't even bothered trying ro write good comedy, just rehash third rate jokes and hope it sticks. The worst of all this is that it's all so damm uninteresting and lacking in every way.<br /><br />To make things worse leading man Kevin James has a permanent "I'm so funny" smug grin on his face that would be tolerable if only he once delivered in the comedy department, which he doesn't, he just lies there doing nothing like a big unfunny baby. Which takes me to the relationship between the Heffernan's- easily the most insincere and poor representation of a married couple on any TV show, really headache inducingly obnoxious Remini spends the whole show as if it where a violent chore to even be around her own husband. Jerry Stiller yanking the few laughs on the show is doing a 100% repetition of his role as Frank Costanza in Seinfeld only this time his hints mostly tread on water due to the inability of the central duo in recognizing a joke even if it flew by them. The episodes just drift along in a stream of nothingness, their jobs add nothing and their interaction is even worse.<br /><br />This is not even a waste of talent, there is no talent here, this is a laughless creative desert.
| 0 |
negative
|
I am a Sociologist/Anthropologist specializing in the field of Symbolic Interactionism, and I must say that this film exhibits high quality in the symbolic context throughout the entire film. To anyone who has not yet seen this, I recommend that you also read "Man's Search For Ultimate Meaning" by Victor E. Frankl. I think you will be able to draw some amazing correlations.<br /><br />That being said, I would like to say that despite the fact that the main characters are gay, this is not a story about being gay. This is a story about seeking out and finding meaning in life, despite the difficulties and challenges, the pain and terror that stand in your way. This is a story of seeking and finding balance and wholeness and happiness.
| 1 |
positive
|
The most self-indulgent movie I have every had the misfortune to<br /><br />rent. Unwatchable. Much of the movie is obviously improvised,<br /><br />and not well. It looks like Toback took the first take of<br /><br />everything. The movie gets good for a couple of minutes when<br /><br />Robert Downey Jr. shows up, then goes to hell again real<br /><br />quickly.
| 0 |
negative
|
The Ascent (1977) <br /><br />Larisa Shepitko is a name very few are familiar with. Her bright career as a director only lasted a single decade, ended abruptly by a tragic car accident. Despite her short career, she however managed to create some of the best Soviet films of her time. Her last film, The Ascent, is widely regarded as one of the finest Soviet films of the 1970s. Nevertheless, her work remained in obscurity throughout the years that followed, usually only available on rare and poor copies on video. That has now changed thanks to the folks at Criterion. They've released two of Shepitko's best works through their Eclipse department - Wings, and her penultimate masterpiece The Ascent.<br /><br />Set during the darkest days of WWII in snowy rural Russia, two partisans trudge their way across the land in search of food after their party is attacked by Nazi patrols. They're originally only to go to a nearby farm, but when they arrive they find it razed by the Germans. Not wanting to return empty handed, they continue on deeper into enemy territory. Along the way they must confront not only enemy soldiers, but the harsh conditions of the Russian plains, potential betrayal and their own souls.<br /><br />The movie does not fall into simplistic plot devices or destinations. It addresses difficult questions with painful rationality. It never takes the easy road or gives us comforting answers. The second half of the film is filled with moral dilemmas. Shepitko shows us the intimate horrors of war through the internal conflict between fellow Russians - those who collaborated and those who fought back. While she does show the collaborators as the clear heels, she nevertheless also shows why many turned to such tactics - survival.<br /><br />The film contains a number of religious references, particularly to the lead up to the crucifixion. This is a spiritual journey, into the hearts, souls, and minds of the two partisans and those they encounter. Shepitko and her cinematographer capture the journey in beautiful black and white photography. The camera moves in long shots, similar to the camera-work of another of Russia's greatest filmmakers, Andrei Tarkovsky. Shepitko, like many others, was clearly influenced by Tarkovsky's style, and the Ascent takes some of its rhythmic notes from Ivan's Childhood. It is a stunning film to look at, and does a fantastic job of capturing the cold and terrifying atmosphere of occupied Russia.<br /><br />Shepitko's husband would pay homage to her great film a decade later. Elem Klimov made his own war masterpiece with one of the greatest films I've ever seen - Come and See. The story and themes of that film were clearly influenced by The Ascent. Though that film is also a fairly obscure one, it received far more attention that any of Shepitko's films. That however acted as a bridge to Shepitko, and has been one of the best helps to keeping her work alive.<br /><br />The Ascent is a truly magnificent film, and rightly should be considered one of the best films of the 70s. It's stunning cinematography is inspiring; its mood is frighteningly authentic; and its lessons are unforgettable. It is, in any definition of the word, nothing less than a masterpiece. How unfortunate that Shepitko's career was cut short just as it was hitting its peak.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is,in short,the TV comedy series with the best cast ever;and the most likable also.Each one of them is a firsthand comedy actor.I know only one TV series which was better (i.e., "Moonlighting")that one had Willis as a leadyet it had Willis only,while The King of Queens has a pocketful of actors that are as fine as one can enjoy--Kevin James, Leah Remini, Jerry Stiller, Patton Oswalt, Nicole Sullivan, Victor Williams, Gary Valentine,and even all the rest of them
.I spontaneously and continually and promptly liked it.Advancing age didn't spoil the fun,anyway.<br /><br />In a few words,the series is intelligent and original,miraculously spared of the current TV stupidity and garbage. It is politically incorrect and doesn't court the minorities in the usual disgusting way.<br /><br />The comic is very palatable and savory.<br /><br />I read, mostly approvingly, a few IMDb writers, and sometimes they write about their favorite showsyet, though these writers are several, I did not encountered, at any of them, the slightest mention of my favorite TV shows (--but it's true that the critics one likes are not those with whom he finds himself in complete approvalbut those who at least offer a common basis for disapproval)which are, mainly, WILD WILD WEST, MOONLIGHTING, QUEENS, FANTOMAS, the '80s TWILIGHT ZONE, Bradbury's TV show and SANDOKAN. Most of them I have seen when I was 1314 yrs; about a few of them I have written, and execrably.
| 1 |
positive
|
I was looking in the TV Guide for movies that come from Germany and I found one called The Bunnyguards, so I watched it and I laughed myself silly! I wanted the DVD but its not available here (I could order it from Germany but it doesn't have subtitles) It was played again so I taped it and watch it from time to time.<br /><br />Anyway, I looked for info on it and found out its real name is Erkan & Stefan, but I know it by its Australian title: The Bunnyguards.<br /><br />Some people who I know from Germany do not like Erkan & Stefan because of their accents, but not being German myself, I didn't notice anything. The jokes are good, but some Germans might find their accents off-putting.<br /><br />I think this movie is funny and if the DVD had English subtitles on all the extras (having a 2 disk edition with only the feature having subtitles would be bad) I would buy it up in a snap!<br /><br />I recommend it to anyone looking for a laugh and a pretty good story.
| 1 |
positive
|
Lucasarts have pulled yet another beauty out of a seemingly bottomless bag of great games. If any further proof was required that they rule this genre of gaming, then this is it. Before actually playing the game, there was a little concern about how the writers were going to keep up the pace of gags after the first two games. Fears were rife that it was going to wear a bit thin.<br /><br />Play the game and see how quickly those fears are allayed. From the introductory video with Guybrush in the dodgem boat (!), to the closing stages in the funfair, the jokes just keep on coming. I was a great fan of the first two games and the other Lucasarts works (Day Of The Tentacle, Sam & Max, etc) and this one does not fail to deliver the quality. You will not be disappointed. (Well, I wasn't.)
| 1 |
positive
|
This is one of the most unoriginal, cliche-ridden movies I have ever seen. Even if you didn't like this film's antecedents, 'The Bad News Bears' and 'The Mighty Ducks,' they are bound to have done a better job than this one. From the moment the new teacher greets her class and they tell her, "Don't bother with us, we're all losers," you can see everything that's coming twenty miles away for the rest of the film. <br /><br />All the usual suspects are here. Besides the spunky teacher, we have a group of what are supposed to be endearingly bratty kids (they're brats, yes, but no so endearing), a slow-witted small town sheriff that they love to torment, an arrogant head coach of the winning rival team, etc., ad nauseum. Only Olivia d'Abo as the new teacher displays any likabilty. I never cared much for Steve Guttenberg before and his performance as the sheriff doesn't change things. Jay O. Sanders is a capable actor but his character, the rival coach, leaves him nothing to work with. Let's hope that writer/director Holly Goldberg Sloan comes up with something better next time out.
| 0 |
negative
|
Babette's Feast, for me, is about healing: mending the schism between spirit and body in orthodox Christianity. This puritanical community in remote Denmark is missing an adequate appreciation of all of God's gifts in creation. They have taken the dualism of St. Paul to an extreme, and stress the life of the "spirit," not the life of the "flesh." Both elderly sisters, in their youth, were frightened by the lure of love and the temptations of life outside their simple village. They, and their parishioners, cling to the narrow biblical interpretation of their former leader, and the sisters' father. The aging congregation has become testy and quarrelsome, and the sisters don't know what to do. Enter Babette, a French stranger, and someone to whom they can show kindness. They have no way of knowing that she will ultimately return their kindness and give fertile soil to their dry, dusty theology. Babette will give everything she has, and in the process, will teach the sisters and their flock about grace, about sacrifice, about how sensual experience (as in the bread and wine of the Eucharist) can change lives, and about why true art moves us so deeply. When they can forgive each other, and themselves, they can focus on God's love that unfolds before them in a concrete way in the present. As a minister, and an artist, I can't recommend a movie more highly. True art and true grace!!
| 1 |
positive
|
My guess would be this was originally going to be at least two parts, and thus at least a quarter longer, because otherwise how can one explain its confused, abbreviated storyline. I was never completely lost, but I was often partially lost and usually unclear on character motivation. The movie feels as though joining plot points were dropped to squeeze it into its time slot.<br /><br />If it were longer, it might make more sense, but it still wouldn't be much good. The movie's most interesting idea is of the war between Zeus and Hera as being a war between the male and female, but the movie drops the ball on this, making Hera's followers fairly horrible while not being clear on what Zeus' followers do or believe. The movie is also interesting because you don't see the gods and there's no real certainty that they exist. So it's got a couple of intriguing ideas, but it doesn't do anything useful with them.<br /><br />Bad dialog, cardboard characters, and one interesting scene involving Hercules and his three antagonistic sons. Not unwatchable but also not worth watching.
| 0 |
negative
|
First time I ever felt I needed to write a review.<br /><br />I have seen thousands of movies in my life and I like a wide range of movies. I am reasonably opened minded, and can easily say I enjoyed a movie while still saying "yeah it was not good but I enjoyed it". I can appreciate the mastery of great movies like The Shaw shank redemption, the godfather, and American history X. I can like good movies in a genre like horror, or comedy, even if the movie might not be that great. I can even enjoy a bad movie that just happens to entertain me (Bloodsport). I also will try to rate movie fairly even if I did not like it. City lights by Charlie Chapin was not a movie I enjoyed, but I can appreciate the acting and story lines for the time.<br /><br />I think some people when they go on this site instead of randomly click a rating, should take a few ideas into account. Try to rate the movie based on how good it actually was. Do not let your personal bias affect the rating. Also look at other moves you rated and compare the movie you are going to rate.<br /><br />This "movie" was the worst piece of trash I have ever seen. 2 hours of my life where just stolen. The acting was awful, across the board. The scenes where choppy at best. However the real disgrace was the story. The first 20 minutes we actually had a story that tried to make sense and take the viewer from point A to B. However after that it was a nightmare. They kept trying to add new elements but nothing was every explained. Nothing really ever made sense, was steward dead, is he alive, did he hit by lighting, was it really lighting, was it aliens, is he an alien, etc. The ending tied nothing together and really did not answer any questions. The only positive was nobody cared we where just happy to leave the theater.<br /><br />6.5/10??? What is wrong with some of you? I will admit that the 8 of us where so mad about seeing this, we did think "what would make it better?", and we decide to tell a few of our friends that this movie was good so they would have to suffer and see this movie. What can I say misery loves company. That is really the only reason I can see for a 6.5 rating.<br /><br />Do not waste your life!
| 0 |
negative
|
Excellent film featuring Anthony Wong that certainly lives up to it's title. Erotic, but increasingly violent courtesy of dreams purchased from a crazed occultist that rapidly turn into nightmares of some magnitude as the sorcerer gets inside them to manipulate poor Mr Wong. Well filmed and very fast moving this is a non stop tale of serious magic, herbal medicines, power and corruption but also makes time for some fine sex scenes and some very bloody violence. There is also just a little touch of humour now and again to catch you further off guard and the whole thing makes for a most exhilarating 90 minutes or so. Excellent performances all round.
| 1 |
positive
|
The only reason to see this film is Sung Hi Lee, the stunning model/actress from Korea who plays "Muka Laka Miki" (give me a break) in this otherwise crappy movie. <br /><br />She is given a fairly substantial part in this film and seems to handle it well, though none of the parts is really interesting or well written. Even for a National Lampoon's movie, it's really stupid. Stupid humor is one thing, but just stupid is another. I may have laughed once, and that was probably just me being polite.<br /><br />Warning: Watching this movie may be bad for your health on two counts: 1) It, like, totally sucks. 2) Sung Hi Lee is so freaking gorgeous she just might blow your brains out of the back of your head upon first sight.<br /><br />So don't say I didn't warn you...
| 0 |
negative
|
When a friend once lambasted me for my first movie (a pretty bad videotaped affair), I argued that I could grow; Orson Welles' first movie, indeed, was even worse. He challenged me that it couldn't be, so I pulled out the Criterion laserdisc of (I think) CITIZEN KANE and played HEARTS OF AGE. My friend lasted just a few minutes before conceding the point.<br /><br />There is a little humor in this short, but it's basically as pretentious as (and perhaps a collegiate answer to) BLOOD OF A POET and other avant garde films of the time. It is what it is: a succession of images with a vague theme, and unless you really enjoy any footage of Welles (in heavy makeup, to boot), this isn't really even worth tracking down.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is a great horror film for people who don't want all that vomit-retching gore and sensationalism. This movie has equal amounts of horror, suspense, humor, and even a little light nudity, but nothing big. Linnea Quigley isn't over the top as she was in "Return of the Living Dead" where she danced naked on a crypt, but she is still essentially the same slutty character. Cathy Podewell is a virginal and chaste character before going on to "Dallas," and we are also introduced to Amelia [soon Mimi] Kinkade,the sexy and sinister would-be dark matron of the house. As she and Linnea are possessed and take over the house, they reanimate the bodies of their dead friends to scare the limits out of the survivors. I've heard a lot of people compare this movie to "The Evil Dead," but if anything, this movie is a rival to that one the same way Freddie rivaled Jason.This movie series though is far superior to that one !
| 1 |
positive
|
I'm currently slogging through Gibbon's 'Fall and Decline of the Roman Empire , so I've had all things Roman on my mind. I'm not very far into it yet, maybe two hundred plus pages, but it is amazing just how many of these Roman emperors were killed. I believe I've read through maybe 15 emperors so far and only Antonius, Trajan, and Hadrian haven't been killed or at least suspected of having been killed. I have also been fascinated by the mad excesses of many of these princes of Rome. Not the least practitioner of these was Caligula. This brings me to reviewing this film. I'm thinking of the film on a historical basis as far as I understand it from Gibbon's explanation of Rome,as well as other research from some good web sites and some fiction novels dealings with the period.<br /><br />My point is I do not think that this film is what it is thought to be by many of it's proponents. I do not think the depravity shown with the sex and horrendous violence of this film qualify it as accurate. The general ideas of the film seem accurate. Caligula is raised on an island ,exiled with his family and in content fear of being murdered by the increasingly mad, suspicious and strange emperor Tiberius. He grows up paranoid and afraid and can never shake the cutesy nickname given him by his guards, Little Boots, this helps him grow up feeling abused and powerless. He is handed the empire after Tiberius dies, the senate hoping he will steer away from the informer squads which brought death by whim of the former delusionally paranoid tyrant, and lead Rome away from the madness that dictator had settled it into. Caligula begins as a decent if hands-off emperor, but gets sick, almost dies, and comes back from the brink of feverous death a true monster. His perversities with his sisters do begin here, if not before. He does have Macro killed and many others who were his originally supporters. The acts of madness seemed not to be the murders of Caligula as much as his new thinking of himself as a living God. Him seen talking to the statue of Jupiter as an equal doomed him. His violent mad excesses would have doomed him anyway, and three years seems to have been quite a decent run for the successors of Tiberius. Well the film basically sticks to these lines while it manages to be coherent, which is not common through it's entirety, it does so while trying to shock the audience at all turns, in every single scene the film begs you to be disgusted by the depravity of ancient Rome. The shocking scenes are what this film is built entirely upon and where it entirely fails. It is just too much to see successive rulers have man after man murdered, raped, tortured for no reason but fancy. The depictions of the violence are possibly, but not probably, accurate. Murder certainly was the order of the day in Imperial Rome, torture beforehand was rote. But the director's visions of these deaths and the bored amusement of their protagonists, while the bystanders watch with nonchalance, I just don't see it having gone down exactly like that. The death machine, the beheader, is certainly something like you've never seen in movies, and something once seen you shall probably never forget, even as I, you wish you could. The wine drinking while the penis is roped off is the same, once you've seen this shame it is yours forever. These things strike me the director's and that porn magnate's fantasies. They sprung from their sick imaginations and not from any proved record.<br /><br />The acting is pretty good. I actually think Mcdowell is the weakest link here. Mirren is always something to behold, and here in her youthful years she is formidable and beautiful. The portrayals of Nerva and Tiberius are done very well by their respected actors. The film could have done so much better story telling, it is such a failure that way its just a whole other layer of what a shame this thing was. For example it could have given opinion on how and why Caligula went mad, or shown that he was mad, paranoid before his illness and that fever then broke the mental restraint he had possessed previously. It could have shown the weakness of Claudius and the miracle it was he survived Caligula. It could have these and many other things but it stuck to it's sad nightmares.<br /><br />Finally about the sex. It is porn. It shows these sex acts being done all over the palaces by many people. Male on male, female on female, male on female. It is passionless, disgusting sex. Sex that if your point is to get off on it, I seriously doubt you could. Both Tiberius and Caligula may have been sex addicts, and orgies may have been common enough but the visions in this film seem to recall more a Greek time than a Roman. I don't think that kind of acceptance of homosexuality or orgies right out in the open were common until the the strange, depraved reign of Elgabalus, and he was killed for it.<br /><br />This film should probably never be watched, if your curious about it , let it go. It is something, as I said earlier, if you do watch this you will unfortunately retain it's sick visions in your minds eye for years to come. I don't think its an accurate historical picture in particular, even if it is historical in whole.
| 0 |
negative
|
I don't understand why more people have not commented on this, other than the fact that perhaps not very many have seen it. It's an amazing cast of characters, one after another after another, all done by the guy who wrote the play. If you don't like filmed plays, you may not like this (after all, plays usually don't look good on TV), but it's a one-man show that will have you paying attention throughout. Highly recommended.
| 1 |
positive
|
I rented this movie because it supposedly takes place in a jazz club -- you know, those hip, cool places you might stumble upon late on a Saturday night. Well, there's not one ounce of "cool" in this ridiculous movie. The score is goofy, the original songs are awful, both lead actors' singing is continually off-key (to be kind) and unprofessional at best, the plot is no more complex than "boy meets girl," the acting is laughable, and the only decent cinematic moments are the stock footage scenes. The jazz club scenes feature sophomoric dialog smothered by overly-busy organ music. This Joey de Francesco should keep his day job (unless his day job is helping with movie scores). Is it possible to not only get my four dollars back, but have my therapy sessions paid for as well? This movie, interestingly enough, is so bad, you might want to watch it. Sort of like driving by a bad accident -- you just have to look at least once. Just get the ear plugs ready!
| 0 |
negative
|
Having seen Carlo Lizzani's documentary on Luchino Visconti, I was bound to higher expectations before watching this film made three years later by Adam Low. But the viewer like me did get dissatisfied... I faced a need for critical opinion, which I generally don't like giving due to the fact there are no documentaries that will satisfy every viewer. There are also no documentaries that will examine a theme totally. But when I read the reviews already written on this title, I also felt a bit confused. People sometimes don't know what to criticize. Therefore, to be clear, I'll divide this film into two major parts that differ considerably: the former one about Visconti before his director's career and latter one about Visconti the director. <br /><br />The aristocratic background, all the hobbies, the wealth that young Luchino experienced and enjoyed are clearly presented. His effort in horse racing is mentioned as well as his relation with his mother so much disturbed after his parents' divorce. We also get a very accurate idea of where Luchino was brought up as a real count of Milano: in riches galore, with nannies, cooks with access to everything, in TRUE ARISTOCRACY. For instance, his father's splendid villa at Grazzano and other marvelous villas prove that. There is also an emphasis on Visconti's crucial visit in Paris in the 1930s where he met eminent people ("left wingers") who later had impact on his style and message in art. That clearly explains the idea of a communist with the aristocratic upbringing (a contrast at first sight). <br /><br />However, the part about his director's career, which started with OSSESSIONE during WWII and ended with INNOCENTE just before the director's death in 1976, is poorly executed. His movies are not discussed well. Why? Because there are very few people who really have something to say. Franco Zeffirelli, the director, remembers the works on LA TERRA TREMA and that is all right. There are also some interviews with Franco Rosi. But later, such movies like IL GATTOPARDO, LA CADUTA DEI REI, LA MORTE A VENEZIA or LUDWIG are mostly discussed by Helmut Berger. Although I liked the actor in the role of Ludwig, I did not like the interviews of his. Moreover, some thoughts he reveals are not accurate to entail in such a documentary... There is no mention of significant works of Visconti like CONVERSATION PIECE, there are no interviews with eminent cast Burt Lancaster. A mention about Silvana Mangano and Romy Schneider should also be made. There is one footage interview with Maria Callas that appears to be interesting but that is only a short bit. Franco Zeffirelli, though I appreciate him as a director, makes fun of it all rather than says something really precious. For instance, he mentions the event how Visconti separated from him after years of service. Therefore, I say: simplified and unsatisfactory. <br /><br />What I find a strong point here are footage interviews with Visconti himself. As a result, we may get his own opinion about his works. For instance, I very much appreciate the words he says about death regarding it as a normal chapter of life and as natural as birth itself. He also discusses his health problems after the stroke while filming LUDWIG.<br /><br />I believe it is better to see LUCHINO VISCONTI (1999) by Carlo Lizzani than this doc. Although it is shorter and condensed as a whole, you will get a better idea of the director. Visconti would be furious about that and the fury of his usually turned people's emotions and viewpoints into stone... 4/10
| 0 |
negative
|
I watched this again after having not seen it since it first came out (in '97), and it still made me laugh out loud. It's skillfully written, Kevin Kline and Joan Cusack are both perfect in their roles, and if you can look at Bob Newhart in this movie and not chuckle, you're more of a man than I.<br /><br />For that matter, I think the scenes where Tom Selleck kisses Kevin Kline, where Kevin Kline listens to the "How to be a Man" cassette, and the post-(almost-)wedding scenes w/ Joan Cusack are three of the funniest scenes in any movie.<br /><br />Sure, the last scene is a bit of an excuse for a happy ending, but...few movies are perfect.
| 1 |
positive
|
I truly love horror films & try to give every one I see as much credit (or sometimes more) as possible, but this is really pushing the ticket...most of the cast were very like-able but hardly any of them could act at all - but then again think about the writing/dialogue of this mess...some good make-up but absolutely ridiculous special fx. All in all I give it 3 out of 10 - & am having second thoughts about that!!
| 0 |
negative
|
I saw the film at the Brooklyn International Film Festival (World Premiere).<br /><br />A haunting, intimate portrait of Loneliness, and the repercussions of letting it grow and turn into something darker.<br /><br />The acting of the two leads (Jessica Bohl & Richard Brundage) is excellent, and makes one wish you had met these characters before they became so damaged.<br /><br />Reminded me in theme of the works of Atom Egoyan (Exotica) and Raymond Carver (Where I'm Calling From).<br /><br />The Soundtrack (Tywanna Jo Baskette, Crooked Fingers) is excellent and reinforces moments in the film without drawing attention to itself.<br /><br />Highly recommend the Film and the Soundtrack.
| 1 |
positive
|
In "Checking Out", Peter Falk plays an elderly New Yorker who summons his children home so that they can be with him before he plans to commit suicide. As the movie progresses, we get to see everyone's flaws and other problems. While some people may interpret this as a "heartwarming" movie, I mostly enjoyed it for Peter Falk's character not letting anything get him down, and even engaging in a little lewdness now and then.<br /><br />So, it might not be the best movie ever, but still worth seeing. I've long thought that Peter Falk has the perfect look to play this sort of role, what with his glass eye and all. Also starring Laura San Giacomo, David Paymer, Judge Reinhold and Shera Danese (Falk's real-life wife).
| 1 |
positive
|
ALERT: This review contains major SPOILERS. Do not read on if you plan to see this film.<br /><br />Judging from the amount of votes this got (my vote was the fifth one) very few people know or care who Mimi Lesseos is. Well, back in the late 1980s, professional wrestling was pretty decent. An all-woman's federation called the Ladies Professional Wrestling Association opened. It was a great league, and Mimi Lesseos was one of the names on the roster. I always thought she was one of the best people the LPWA had in terms of ring skill and acting ability. Unfortunately, the LPWA closed down in the early 90s, so it only seemed natural for someone with as much talent as Mimi to start an acting career, right? But surely there was an alternative to stuff like this? This movie is really bad. As it was going along, I kept comparing it to an underrated movie called `Survivor Quest,' only this film lacks everything that made `Survivor Quest' enjoyable.<br /><br />As I started the tape, I went to fast forward through the preview to get to the meat of the tape. At first, I wasn't paying much attention, but then I realized that the preview was for a movie starring Mimi Lesseos. `Oh,' I thought, `here's another movie featuring Mimi to look for.' But as the preview dragged on, I became aware that is was a preview for
.'Beyond Fear!' You know you're in trouble when the only preview at the beginning features the movie you are about to watch! The plot of this thing is pretty standard. Lesseos plays an ex-kickboxer that is living with the guilt of injuring an opponent/friend, so she focuses herself on her second career which she shares with her friend Sammy: being a wilderness guide. On this particular occasion, she gets a troop of three couples. Two of the couples are just there to take up space. You think that one couple, a Caucasian husband and a Korean wife, will be explored, as an issue appears between them halfway through the film, but it is ignored in favor of repeated jokes about bears in the woods, which consistently scares the Korean wife. The joke is funny the first time you hear it, but it certainly isn't by the ninth time they do it. The third couple is just painful to watch: it consists of Mr. and Mrs. Page. They trade insults back and forth, and Mr. Page uses his video camera for the art of voyeurism when he's not busy playing cruel jokes on his portly wife
.just like your typical American couple! Before the hike, Mr. Page is spying on two stupid guys and their prostitute. One of them accidentally kills the prostitute and finds out Mr. Page taped it. So begins the peril, as the two guys track the group on their trip, and we wait
.and wait
.and wait
.and wait for them to finally do something. When they do, it's a fiasco.<br /><br />You can't blame the cast. They try as hard as they can with the material they have to work with. The main culprit is director Robert F. Lyons, who needs to go back to playing bit parts and stay out of the director's chair. Lyons starts and stops scenes in such a sloppy, sudden matter that you start to think he was suffering from dyspepsia throughout the entire shoot. There's even one incompetent moment when a broad daylight scene with the thugs is slipped between some nighttime scenes. Then there is the sound department. The music and background noise completely overpower the dialogue so that you have to move your ear right next to your television's speaker. Don't bump your head on the screen! It isn't worth it to hear the poorly written lines. Speaking of poor writing, Lesseos gets some of the credit there as co-writer. The few interesting developments between characters are often abandoned for shots of the thugs or bad practical jokes. Early on, Lesseos knocks out a thug with a switchblade knife, so not once do you think they are in any danger from the two stupid thugs. When the crooks finally get their rear ends kicked by Lesseos in a well done and long fight, our cast all have a huge laugh together, despite the fact that one of them has been shot and is bleeding everywhere. Yes, everyone is happy in the end. Everyone except the poor souls witnessing the film, wishing for the good old glory days when Mimi performed in the wrestling ring. Zantara's score: 4 out of 10
| 0 |
negative
|
Director J.S. Cardone presents something a little scary and a little creepy, but nothing more. A widowed mother Karen Tunny(Lori Heuring)inherits a home in the Pennsylvania mountains; so she takes her two daughters and moves into the sprawling estate in what seems the middle of nowhere. But it is somewhere, somewhere ninety some odd years ago a tragic mining accident claimed the lives of numerous children who were forced to labor in the dark and dank. The area and especially the Tunny estate seems to be haunted by the spirits of the tiny little wicked souls. The legend is the screaming children come out in the moonlight to seek their revenge; and you better believe it. Also in the cast: Ben Cross, Scout Taylor-Compton, Chloe Moretz, Julie Rogers and Geoffrey Lewis.
| 0 |
negative
|
I have read all of Shakespeare's plays, seen productions of a majority of them and even acted in and directed some. I do not necessarily believe that Shakespeare must be done in the "traditional" fashion, but I hated this movie.<br /><br />There is nudity that is gratuitous and unnecessary. There is grotesqueness that is far beyond what I believe Shakespeare intended. Some of the dialogue is incomprehensible, and there are those elements, like the singing and dancing that add no meaning to the movie, but replace Shakespeare with the director's self-indulgences.<br /><br />I am sorry to say that I wasted perfectly good money to buy the DVD of this movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
Standard "Disease outbreak in remote area; expert who happens to be vacationing in the area takes charge" movie. There are only a few deviations from the norm. One is that the kids involved are pretty reasonable from the outset. Usually they are monsters who repeatedly gum up the works until they redeem themselves in the end. Another is that the local medicine man/witch doctor who is normally an impediment early on is never completely discounted or redeemed in the end. Perhaps since this seems to have been made for the faith oriented PAX channel, they didn't want to seem too judgmental about the faithful. Finally, there were no evil local politicians/leisure industry bigwigs trying to cover the whole thing up. The lack of these stereotypes was refreshing -- if we have the PAX channel to thank for that I may have to sample a few more of their offerings. Aside from that, however, this was pretty standard stuff. You've seen it all before.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is how I interpreted the movie: First things first. There was not a single scene in the movie where u see the bad guy (Taylor) torturing or nailing Ben's hands to the wall. However the same cannot be told of the gals. In the end too, u see Taylor disappear as he walks. Looks like the message there was "There was no Taylor". And the whole movie was a figment of imagination of Ben. Also, there was no scene during the torturing moments wherein any of the gals confront or are in the same frame as Ben. It was Taylor all the time. But in real, Taylor was Ben. If they were two different people, then why was there no scene showing both of them in one frame during the horrific times? But of course before that, u do see both of them together and THAT cud just be Ben's imagination at work. Also, when Ben was out of jail, the text on screen clearly says that Ben's story was unrealistic and there was no such place as he had explained (read mine, cars etc...)Even after Liz Hunter leaves Kristy and comes back to find Ben, she doesn't find him. Why??? Because Ben (Taylor) was out looking for the gals. Instead Kristy has all the time in the world to check out Taylor's (Ben) Web cam, photos etc...<br /><br />Somehow everything sums up to just one fact that Kristy and Liz, both of them knew that Taylor was Ben. So, my conclusion is that Ben was schizophrenic and the movie where you see him and Taylor in one frame was nothing but figments of his imagination. Otherwise if there really was a Taylor, then they should have found him out given all the detailed explanation coming from Ben.
| 1 |
positive
|
I sincerely wonder why this film was ever made. A Bulgarian-Italian co-production set in a version of Berlin where all Germans speak English with a German accent and all Turks speak English with some Turkish words in between, is hardly credible. The English vocabulary is basically limited to "fuck you, bastard" and the acting is worse than anyone can imagine. Apart from this, racial tensions in Germany can be an interesting subject but in the Germany I know there are no gangs shooting each other in the middle of the street in clear daylight. And if all that is not enough, there is also a serial killer going around who kills Turkish children and paints them white. In order to create some tension, we see the serial killer and hear him hum Schubert's lullaby but we won't see his face. <br /><br />I don't even believe they actually shot it in Germany. There are some street shots that are quite obviously in Berlin, but the actors are not seen in those shot. It's probably Bulgaria with some German signs added here and there.
| 0 |
negative
|
As a Scot I find the idea of "Macbeth" shifted in Time and Space to America totally moronic.I am sure this doesn't apply to broadminded IMDb Users,but why are so many Americans unable to relate to ANY film concept that isn't set in their Country ? This attitude does Americans no favours in the Big Wide World out here.<br /><br />It was bad enough that "The Wicker Man" was remade and set in the USA ,totaly stripped of its Cultural context, and with a Polticaly Correct gender change for a leading Character.<br /><br />One wonders what next,Robert The Bruce as a New York cop ?,Mary Queen of Scots as a "Soccer Mom" juggling ,kids ,a career and relationships ?<br /><br />Come on Hollywood, open up to all the other Cultures on the Planet!
| 0 |
negative
|
Excellent story, wonderful acting, amazing production values and a cool, action-packed short with a perfect twist at the end. What a great short film! <br /><br />I saw this film in Vail or Aspen at a film festival and was wowed by it. Then I saw it again at another festival (where it won again) and I was even more impressed because subtle touches become evident the second time around - for a short film, this packs a lot of clever layers into a short time.<br /><br />AWOL is not for the faint of heart, but it is very well done and completely impressive for a short film - for any film actually. It's an interesting story told very well, and every scene moves the story, which reveals good film-making instincts went into making this film. The film looks gorgeous and David Morse is also stunning, with a dynamic performance delivered in every scene. Watching his character attempt to defeat the curveballs life is throwing him makes a great viewing experience.<br /><br />It also should be noted, that when tortures of war are in the headlines everyday, the lines between reality, good and evil, can get very gray while the rhetoric gets loud and attempts to make things black and white. AWOL smartly allows the audience to decide for themselves what they think the message is, what is real and what is not, which adds to the mystery.<br /><br />Both times I've seen it, the audience was WAY more into this movie than the others playing with it, which is saying a lot. There are a lot of shorts out there right now, but few deliver the kind of all around excellence and complex subject matter that AWOL does.<br /><br />It sounds to me like the previous reviewer is off his or her rocker, or has some personal agenda, because this really is a great example of short independent film-making. I see a LOT of short films, and I must say if only ALL the shorts making the festival rounds were this good, THEN the shorts business would have some serious legs.
| 1 |
positive
|
Here we've got an intelligent mixture of typical hongkongmovieshootouts, worlddestructionthemes and intelligent filmmaking. Not that the script has not its big holes and a few specialeffects are a bit cheaplooking. But the cinematography is a optical treat and the soundtrack is first rate. The blend of fast actionsequences and colorful slow, sometimes nearly poetic parts, has no comparison in its kind of movie, so a classification is rather hard. The closest genre is a disaster or terroristmovie with deeper human and political notes than usual. Well worth to be seen worldwide in cinemas. But i am hoping this for so many other (mostly asian) movies before and nobody seems to believe me. Unfortunately.
| 1 |
positive
|
My take on the ending. Bobby died at the hands of his step father. Mike had tried as he may to get Bobby out. Only a child could think that it would be possible to build a machine that could fly. Bobby died.... Mike as a child survived by creating an alternative ending in his mind...on how Bobby left....Mike made a plane that flew Bobby out. Children who are sexually and violent abused often create whole other worlds in their minds to survive.<br /><br />Was also great seeing my old housing area. We called it San Jose Boulevard and I lived right around where these house were filmed. It was so strange to see that they filmed inside the houses...not studios... It was my kitchen, bedroom and living room. And those hills...we use to hike them as kids....looking down on our little valley....seeing glimpses of the bay. Was a real nostalgia trip for me.
| 1 |
positive
|
In what attempts to be a positive story, Dolph Lundgren leads a group of mercenaries to take over a tropical island that looks a lot like paradise so that the men who hired his team can mine it for...bird droppings. Actually, the nitrogen gas that exudes from the muck on this island is what they are after.<br /><br />There was only one good thing about this movie -- the island location in which it was filmed was beautiful. Otherwise, the story drowns itself leaving the actors with nothing to work with. Result: A lot of violence, a lot of language, lots of blood, and a few shots of women topless. If you want pointless violence (sorry, the storyline can't even give the violence a point, though it tries) then this is the movie for you.<br /><br />Parents: be warned that this movie is full of violence and blood, driving the R rating.
| 0 |
negative
|
The English translation of the title on the DVD version of this film is "Graveyard of Horrors," but I think that must be an error. It should have been called "Graveyard of Horribles." Horrible acting, horrible editing, horrible story, and horrible music all make this a horrible film best left in a horrible graveyard.<br /><br />Horrible.
| 0 |
negative
|
I think I watched a highly edited version because it wasn't nearly as graphic as I expected - based on the other reviews that I have heard.<br /><br />Other than 1. being written by the same person who wrote the original "Emmanuelle" (1974), Emmanuelle Arsan, 2. the lead character being a sexually free spirit, and 3. being set in the exotic locale of Asia, "Laure" doesn't have the same flair as its predecessor.<br /><br />I just found this film way too talky with philosophical topics that I'm really not that interested in, i.e. the voyeuristic, open relationship between Laure and Nick, "I'm just happy with whatever brings her pleasure"...something along those lines. I cannot relate to this mentality and the film/characters don't really shed any light.<br /><br />The second half about finding the Mara tribe just seemed as though it were a completely separate film. One that I didn't care for. By that time, I was just hoping that it would turn into a porn so that at least it would keep my interest.<br /><br />Maybe I just didn't get it.<br /><br />I'll leave it at that.
| 0 |
negative
|
I consider myself a fan of Jess Franco and his trash movies, but nearly every time I see one of them, I just see missed opportunities and plots that don't play out well. This film is, unfortunately, no different. The film certainly had a lot of potential, as Franco has fused the intriguing theme of the classic film 'The Most Dangerous Game' with his usual brand of trashy sleaze, but the plot here gets lost too often, and it takes an eternity for Franco to get round to the main point of the movie. With this being a later Franco film, you might be forgiven for thinking that the director would have got better, but actually I've found that the opposite is true; as this and the terrible 'Killer Barbys' are two of his very worst films. The plot focuses on a stripper and her sleazy boyfriend. The pair is invited to a private island by a rich woman and her lover. However, they soon find that they haven't been invited there for social reasons as they are 'released' on the island so that the wealthy woman and her friends can hunt them down for sport! <br /><br />What attracted me to this film was the front cover and the fact that it was directed by the king of sleaze flicks. You'd think, then, that I'd be pleased that the movie features a plethora of sex scenes and general sleaze; but I'm not. The reason for this is mostly that the sex and sleaze in the film is really boring and most of the time served only in giving me the condition known as 'itchy fast forward finger'. However, my inclination to see everything through to the end ensured that I had to lump it. There was a time when I didn't think girl-on-girl could possibly be boring, but I have since been proved wrong. The only positive I can pluck out the movie really is that the soundtrack is quite catchy, and despite it being silly foreign pop music; actually blends quite well with the sex scenes. I did enjoy the last ten minutes; as that's when the plot finally got going, but it was a case of too little too late and unfortunately, this is a severely lacklustre film. On the whole, I only recommend this film to those who feel they must see all 180+ Franco movies...everyone else should watch Vampyros Lesbos, Faceless or She Killed in Ecstasy instead.
| 0 |
negative
|
A good movie for horse enthusiasts and most others. It's a horse racing movie, and it's a "little man gets his chance" movie, and it's a "how far would you go?" movie. Walter Mattau once again proves his adaptability as an actor. He fits right in as Lloyd Bourdelle, a Louisiana Cajun horse bum. This movie gives you a rare screen glimpse of Lousiana Cajun horse drag racing. He has a young quarter horse who is a top racing prospect. "had nothing but a filling station and a good horse." The Bourdelles seize the opportunity to make it big by taking the horse, Shadow, to Ruidoso, New Mexico, to get ready to run in the All-American Futurity. But how far will Lloyd go to win the fame and fortune? Also memorable from this movie are scenes of Lloyd spitting tobacco juice and waiting for his truck to start.
| 1 |
positive
|
I'm not going to lie and say I don't watch the show--I do. BUT it has a lot, and a lot of flaws. 1) The Boarding School is perfect. The drama is at a minimum. Everyone is so nice to each other, you know. Lets give that a reality check. Its IMPOSSIBLE that ANY school is perfect like PCA. Free laptops for everyone. Big dorm rooms. Mini fridges. If there was a school like that in real life, almost nobody there would be a virgin for one. Two, everyone there is so rich, and its weird how nobody has anything stolen yet. 2) Characters really unrealistic. First things first, who in they're right minds talk like they do. They talk like a perfect teenager would. Secondly, Logan Reese(Matthew Underwood) is an extremely rich boy "hot" teenage boy. My question is, why isn't almost ever girl in that school all over him? He's rich and "hot" now a days all those girls would be after him, even if he was a jerk. Also, Chase is the most stupidest person ever. He is this shy teenager who claims to not be in love with Zoey, and over-reacts to everything that involves Zoey. She must be BLIND not to see him in love with her.<br /><br />Come on Nick. I know you can do better than THAT. Please..
| 0 |
negative
|
Checking Out will be released Friday September 15th, 2006. through the AMC theater chain starting in New York City. Times Square, 66th and 3rd Ave, West 84th Street. This film has been one from the heart, for the heart. Mark Lane, Jon Karas,Richard Marcus, Jeff Hare, Dana Harrloe,Matt Jensen Ed Abrams, Nick Pike, Peter Falk, Laura San Giacomo, David Paymer, Judge Reinhold, all the cast and crew knew from day one that this film was something special. The need to comfort the elderly is intended, the closeness of family is more apparent now then ever. I would recommend this film to all ages and races. This story rings the truth to anyone with or without family.
| 1 |
positive
|
I have been watching King of Queens from the beginning, and have felt it is overlooked at the award shows. This show has the best humor, you can identify with the characters, we talk about it at work a lot, because I work at a company a lot like IPS, (DHL) and we just love the Teamster plugs!! Carrie is my hero, she is the best, she just puts it out there, no matter what the subject is. Arthur well what can you say? He just cracks you up, and really puts a spin on things. Doug, well he is just so lovable, and funny, the three characters, plus all the friends just make the show complete. This is the best comedy on TV!! I would say up there with Seinfeld, and hey, there's nothing wrong with that .... Excellente!! as Doug would say.
| 1 |
positive
|
(Spoilers Ahead!) This same exact plot from this movie has been done before. It has been done in Ferris Bueller's Day Off! Marques "Bat Man" Houston plays sick. His gullible parents believe him. His sister knows that he's faking, but she still must go to school! She is mad. He has a party with his friends while his parents are away. By the time his parents get home, he is sick again and his parents never found out about the party. I like Immature better when they were in House Party 3 and still immature!
| 0 |
negative
|
Taran Adarsh a reputed critic praised such a dubba movie<br /><br />The film has a weird story wherein a lover sells his love to a brothel cos he wants money to save his mother and then also gets forgived for it LOL<br /><br />The movie is crap<br /><br />the entire first half has it's focus on romance, comedy which fails to work The twist shocks but the entire second half is a mess and the climax is clichéd<br /><br />Direction by Aditya Datt is bad Music is typical Himesh<br /><br />Emraan does his serious role well but his wardrobe, his way of walking through songs.etc is similar to his previous films Geeta Bhasra annoys Ashmith Patel fails to convince this actor was good in MURDER only so far and then a downhill Mithun some screen time and he is okay but his breaking down into a song is forced Ranjeet is okay
| 0 |
negative
|
It seems on the surface to be a romantic _planes, trains and automobiles_ but at times tried for something more, where it failed miserably. Some may like the nontraditional ending, but the attempts at "deep insight" into the world of marriage flopped around not really going anywhere.<br /><br />But if you were interested by the story, the movie tried other methods to distract you. The unnecessary special effects, of which the falling rain was the most obvious, served to do nothing but annoy. The camera-work is erratic at best.<br /><br />One note of caution, however. My movie experience as a whole was less than satisfying, sitting in the first row with a group of young'uns around...
| 0 |
negative
|
This has to be one of the WORST movies I have seen. I tried to like this movie but they managed to mess up practically every individual aspect that pertain to this film! Cheap dialogue, no character development, no tension, not enough story to pull you in, no action apart from some REALLY cheap scenes. It seems they tried some things on the set and said to each other "hey this looks rather cool, why not put this in there" after which the director probably said "Yeah....YEAH this is genius!" and got back to snorting coke or something. When it comes to acting I think the only person that TRIED to make the movie worked is Daan Schuurmans but in the end it is all for nothing. Cause this movie SUCKS!! 2/10
| 0 |
negative
|
Not being a fan of the Coen Brothers or George Clooney, anyone can see the skepticism I took into the theater. Once again, someone in Hollywood dares to create something different. This time it was those zanie (for a temporary lack of a better word) Coens doing "their thing" to one of the great works in literary history. Who would've ever thought Homer had this in mind? I don't know where this film is going to fit in the history books of Hollywood, but it will be in both mine and many others DVD or VHS library. It is one of those films that you can watch over and over. The story is brilliantly written. Clean and entertaining, with a couple of Gumpesque brushes with fame, great performances by Clooney, Turturro, Nelson, and a brief but hilarious Holly Hunter. Being born in Mississippi and raised in other parts of the south, I wish more people would poke a little fun at us like this. They even invoke a soundtrack fitting for the rural south. You are NOT doing anything better this weekend, go see this movie!<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
Not really worth a review, but I suppose it's my duty to warn you all - especially since there are some pretty good reviews of this Canadian bomb floating around out there... Bad acting and a slow moving, absolutely atrociously boring 'coming of age' tale in which 3 boys lives are turned upside down when a man on the run shows up at their clubhouse in the woods. At firs the boys make good with the intruder and at one point even view him as some sort of a role model... However all this changes... and you still won't care. You will recognize Chris Penn, whose biggest cinematic impact is Corky Romano, and a young Devon Sawa, whose career peaked at 'Casper'. I was hoping for a '12 and Holding', 'The War', or 'Lie' and all I got was a waste of time. This film struggles to keep it's audiences attention and never makes an impact or maintains a note of anything remotely interesting.
| 0 |
negative
|
I happened to catch this on TV, and wanted to watch because I remembered the Spin magazine article upon which the movie is based. I was very disappointed. First, if James Belushi is the lead actor in a movie, it should be a sign that it's not exactly an A-list production. Gregory Hines was a world class dancer, but sadly not a great actor.<br /><br />In fact, all of the acting in this film is either flat or hammy, which can only be blamed on the director, who is this film's weakest link. Charles Carner seemed to be trying to ape Oliver Stone's "JFK" in portraying the alleged conspiracy to cover up the "real" child murderer(s), but without the benefit of a good script, an A-list cast or, it must be said, the talent. It just doesn't work.<br /><br />It's a shame that such a worthy topic for a film did not get better treatment.
| 0 |
negative
|
I watched this film on the advice of a friend who assured me it was one of the funniest things he'd ever seen. Sadly this person is completely lacking a sense of humour and I was forced to endure two hours of the worst film making I have ever seen. Please do not watch this film. 1/10
| 0 |
negative
|
Director: Tay Garnett, Ford Beebe, Cast: Mike Mazurki, Vic Christy, Fritz Ford, Tay Garnett.<br /><br />Based on the number of comments I see on IMDb, this seems to be a forgotten movie. This seems rather ironic to me because it is actually one of the first movies that I remember. My mom took me and my little brother to see this film at The Garland theater in Spokane when it first came out in the mid 1970's and I still remember it.<br /><br />I am going by memory here but I believe this move is about a trapper who was accused of a crime which he did not commit and the law goes after him. I believe it to be set in 1800's Alaska. A narrator tells the story of the trapper played by Mike Mazurki. Really, this is a very good film with a great setting. It could be compared to the 1981 film Death Hunt with Charles Bronson. The two films have a very similar story line. The main difference between the two is Death Hunt is an adult orientated film whereas Challenge is a family friendly film. <br /><br />Mike Mazurki and Tay Garnett were both rather old when this movie was made which I find rather impressive when one considers that this movie was filmed on location in the wilds of Alaska. This was the last film made by Tay Garnett before he died which was just a few years later. They both had been around since the silent era.
| 1 |
positive
|
Shawn Michaels vs. Edge-8- Kind of hard to believe Shawn Michaels is in the opening match but still a great match by both men, Edge, whether you like or not is a great performer in the ring, and Shawn Michaels is just ageless when it comes to his performance The Undertaker vs. Heidenreich. Casket Match-2- OK, after a good opening match, now this, what a crappy match. Undertaker has given some great matches at the Royal Rumble, and 1998's Royal Rumble against Shawn Michaels was the same type of match, but this is way worse then that match.<br /><br />Kurt Angle vs. Big Show vs. Bradshaw. Triple Threat WWE Championship-6- It's alright, i feel all three men could of given a better performance, this just really didn't show them at their best.<br /><br />Randy Orton vs. Triple H. World Heavyweight Championship-9- Triple H gets a clean win, can you believe it, sure he takes out the Sledgehammer but doesn't use it. Randy Orton did great when acting like he got a concussion, but how he got the concussion is really ridiculous. I really liked this match, this was the best performance i've seen from HHH in forever.<br /><br />The Royal Rumble Match-7- This was highly entertaining and i usually don't score the royal rumble match this high. The winner is again, very predictable, but just this had a lot of moments that were very entertaining to watch The segments with Flair and Guerrero are hilarious the best segments i've seen in a while.<br /><br />Overall, this is a great PPV and a must own for wrestling fans.
| 1 |
positive
|
"Any Gun Can Play" (1967), directed by Enzo G. Castellari, is a very good pastiche of Spaghetti Westerns, especially Leone's. The first half is great, which, apart from the opening which is a direct nod to "For a Few Dollars More", with Monco, Colonel Douglas Mortimer and El Indio lookalikes walking into a ghost-town and then promptly killed by a Bounty Hunter called "The Stranger", is entirely serious, with great gunfights (especially the train-robbing scene), fast and furious action and nice performances from Gilbert Roland, George Hilton and (who manages well, considering that he is badly miscast) Edd Byrnes. But then, when the film reaches the half-way mark, there is a jokey fist-fight between Hilton and Byrnes. It isn't very funny, and is the weakest part of the film, but it throws everything you have seen previously in a new light. You realise that in fact the whole thing is a spoof of Spaghetti Western conventions, and in retrospect, the first half is so well done that you completely miss this spoof undercurrent. What now follows is a more obvious parody, with even some acrobatic jumping around from Brynes that predates all those seventies Circus Westerns. The ending, a complete send-up of "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" climax, is very well done, as in other hands it could have been very silly. So, a pretty fun Spaghetti Western, that doesn't take itself too seriously. I would recommend it to anyone who likes Spaghetti Westerns.
| 1 |
positive
|
WARNING **SPOILERS**<br /><br />Lord knows I have seen some bad movies in my time and this one makes me just as angry. This is an insult to people who ARE LOOKING for a bad movie. The "story" involves a stewardess who discovers her boyfriend (badly acted by otherwise great Robert Wagner) is a murder, thief, and just an overall puke face. After the Concorde takes off, he sends guided missiles to destroy the Concorde. So while the Concorde is traveling at the speed of light, our "hero" (played with utter stupidity, George Kennedy) opens the window in the cockpit then, sticks his hand OUT THE WINDOW to fire at the missile! I'm no rocket scientist, but it seems his hand would at least get a wind burn. Then towards the final "climax" when the Concorde is headed for certain disaster and everyone will die, a passenger turns to his fiance and proposes marriage. A Priest just happens to be sitting in the next row and proceeds to marry them as the planes is crashing! (I'm not making this up) Wow, the guy who wrote the script must have been sniffing glue for a week.
| 0 |
negative
|
Mr Bean was great fun, i loved it, every episode was really funny, Rowan Atkinson was perfect for this role, he's a funny looking bloke and his facial expressions were hilarious!!! <br /><br />The series was so successful that they even made a Mr Bean movie in 1997, which was also pretty funny by the way!! <br /><br />It's funny seeing all the adventures and situations he gets himself into, this series was a classic for sure, and i still watch an episode from time to time.<br /><br />Mr Bean is well worth a 10/10 in my book, fans of offbeat comedy must check this out.
| 1 |
positive
|
I don't see why everyone is bombing this so much. I thought it was a great fun time that sadly wasn't popular enough to be that famous. Believe me I have seen much much worse than this. If you want a bad movie see blood shack or the alien dead or something. So what this is normal slasher fare but better than most. And it is watchable. This movie also has one of the best soundtracks I've heard. Some of the music is very suspenseful. And the death scenes are cool too. We see a very bloody body in a bathtub with the words SOLD written in blood on the mirror, and we also get a cool double beating by a toilet plunger! with razors attached to it! This was a good fun 80s slasher that's definitely worth your time despite what others say about it.
| 1 |
positive
|
I worked on this atrocity ten years ago. Luckily for me, no one knows it because I didn't make the final cut. And when I saw the movie in the theaters, I was glad! My agents were driven nuts by the (apparently first-time) filmmakers, rewriting the script daily and changing their arrangements with the agencies just as often. They later told me that, once back in California (we shot in Atlanta), these "professionals" had 4 1/2 hours worth of footage! Even edited down to 90 minutes, it's at least twice as long as it needs to be. I found Hulk Hogan surprisingly charming, but otherwise -- what a waste of film!
| 0 |
negative
|
Arthur Miller certainly knows. His stories give a clearer picture of what it means to live in the United States in the 20th century than any other writer I can think of.<br /><br />Focus, based on one of his novels, is no exception.<br /><br />William H. Macy and Laura Dern give fantastic performances here. Emotionally bruising but ultimately rewarding, this movie is excellent.
| 1 |
positive
|
Simply the best and most realistic movie about World War II I've ever seen. Not only because the German soldiers talk German and Russian soldiers talk Russian (no English in a German or Russian dialect)also because of the realistic decor in which the movie was shot. The acting is outstanding. No Hollywood-sentiment at all even no love story...Stalingrad was supposed to be one of the most horrific battles during the war, and in such context there's no place for sentiment or romantic scenes. What you get is a movie which will make you thrill to the bone and which have one of the best unhappy endings a movie could have.
| 1 |
positive
|
I watched this expecting to see the usual British stiff upper lip stereotypes and was surprised to find the dialogue remarkably natural and tinged with black humour. It was more like Eastenders Goes to Sea than In Which We Serve. The scenes during the approach and attack are remarkably realistic in their depiction of a fighting ship and the stuff ups and banter among the ship's company (well at least based on my service in the 1970s). Some of the throwaway lines are very witty ("I'm not joining the Band of Hope just to please some greasy fish fryer!). My only complaint is that they didn't show what happened to the Irish coxswain and his bride to be, or the tattooed PO and his "I Love Arabella" tattoo!
| 1 |
positive
|
This film was not about stereotypes, nor dance moves, nor pickup lines, really. This film was about the vulnerability of peoples' hearts. It was hard to believe that Kevin James could play in a convincing role, that Will Smith could satisfy without action, and that such a hackneyed genre of film could succeed in such a way. I don't intend to sound overly endeared with this film - it wasn't "groundbreaking" in any sort of way - but it was a film worth seeing. Was it believable? No. New York couldn't be so simple and there has been no human being in the history of mankind that has the "hutzpah" of Hitch. Sure, there are bar-studs, but not ones that can get any chick, at any time - excluding those raking in seven figures, of course. The thing that worked best for this film was its true focus on the dramatic side of things, not just on the comedy. It was a funny two hours, no doubt. But it was also two hours that made you sit in your seat, become immersed in the characters, and smile.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is 1 hour and 24 minutes of pure boredom!!<br /><br />In this 'Action'- movie, even the gun Baldwin uses (HK G3A3) sucks. It was sent to recycling by armed forces worldwide in the mid eighties, and is now only used by terrorists, bank robbers and military museums.<br /><br />If I had known this movie was this bad, I would rather watch 10 episodes of MacGyver saving the planet.<br /><br />No groove, no drive and no feel. Watch the Tupperware-channel it's more exiting than this sorry excuse for a movie. This movie doesn't deserve a '0' on the scale. Better luck next time, Baldwin. Until then, I'll sit here watch my toenails grow that is far more exiting than 'Target'
.
| 0 |
negative
|
This was very energetic and well played show. I saw it back in 98 and my friends and i still joke about it. Each time I watch it's always as funny as the first. I also love the way that everyone can relate to it in their own particular ways. I am very much looking forward to seeing more of John's own scripts and productions. <br /><br />Unfortunately I can't find it anywhere for sale, and I've done quite a lot of looking. If anyone knows a website or store to refer me to, I would very much appreciate it as I am looking for his other live performances as well. Please send me a message if any of you have info on the subject. Thankyou.
| 1 |
positive
|
hi, This is the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. The day when I watched this movie, I was having high fever. But still I watched the movie with lots of patience. And after watching the movie, I felt like repenting. Because, I wasted 3 hrs for this stupid movie. I could have taken rest rather then watching this movie. And I was really surprised that how come actors like Sunny Deol, Akshay Kumar Aftab etc acted in this movie.<br /><br />I don't understand if directors don't find a good story to make a film then why do they remain as directors? Why can't they sit at home and spent their time at home? <br /><br />I request to all directors that it will be good for them if they request audiences, either by mail or by media, newspapers, radios etc... to send them a nice story if they don't find any good story for to make a film . I request again to all directors please don't make such films.
| 0 |
negative
|
Okay -- the title "House of Frankenstein", was a reference to a line from the original Frankenstein movie. When they follow it up with a movie entitled "House of Dracula", which makes no real sense, you know that it's just beginning to turn into a franchise.<br /><br />Without explanation, Dracula is back, and he's calling himself Baron Latos. He infiltrates the home of a Doctor Edelmann, with the claim that he is seeking a cure for his vampirism. Edelmann has a hunchback nurse who assists him (what is it with hunchback assistants in these movies?), but what Dracula is really interested in is his other, more beautiful assistant. At this point, Larry "Wolf Man" Talbot returns (again, no explanation given) and just happens to be seeking the same doctor for a cure to his lycanthropy. And then he just happens to fall into a cave in which plants can be grown to help him, which also just so happens to contain the Frankenstein monster. Dear God, when will it end ... sure, the other Universal monster sequels were silly, but this is just ridiculous.<br /><br />First the good stuff. There are some great settings, and the vampire bat effects are slightly better than usual. Some of the other effects are pretty neat too. John Carradine isn't bad as Dracula once you get used to him, but still nothing like as brilliant as Lugosi was. In my opinion, Onslow Stevens plays a much better vampire in this movie, although he has exactly the opposite problem to Carradine -- all of the creepiness and none of the class. None of the performances are that great, but it's more due to the atrocious script than anything else -- the female parts are particularly badly written. But stupid as it is, it remains reasonably entertaining for the most part. The best thing about it is it's short length.<br /><br />Now the bad stuff ... it's not creepy, it's poorly written and it doesn't work. I was hoping the three monsters would begin some kind of a supernatural struggle for power, but it doesn't happen. The focus is almost entirely on Dracula, who isn't particularly well portrayed. On the other hand, this is the only movie in which Dracula infects another man, but it is done via a blood transfusion rather than a bite as Universal were always uncomfortable with the possible homosexual subtext. Larry Talbot is decent as always as the Wolf Man, but he plays a comparatively small part. Once again the part of Frankenstein's monster is reduced to the anti-climatic closing moments. For God's sake, Glenn Strange was fantastic as the creature! Why not give him more screen time? It's unfortunate that the series had to end on this note (not counting the classic comedy "Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein"). In the end it just fizzled in the sunlight and died, much like Dracula himself.
| 0 |
negative
|
I gotta admit it, I love horror films...especially 80s slasher films. Hell, I even love cheese like Sleepaway Camp and Night of the Demons. But, I didn't think much of this movie. The death scenes weren't very well done, the CGI was terrible, and the acting was ho-hum. Worst of all was the story which didn't make sense at all. I'd say save your money but chances are, if you want to see this movie...you're going to anyway. I didn't hate it...it's just not very good. Overall, it's just another bland, lifeless horror film that lacks life (it's no surprise that this one was on the shelf at Dimension for over a year after it was completed).
| 0 |
negative
|
I recommend Idiocracy to everyone. Luke Wilson is very funny, the movie is insightful and made me laugh so hard I had tears running down my face several times. Until the end, when I took a breath and realized just how close we are to Mr. Judge's vision of tomorrow.<br /><br />Keep an eye out for a cameo by the guy from the Mac commercials (Justin Long)as Dr. Lexus. I found his performance Oscar-worthy, especially considering what Oscars have been handed out for in the recent past...besides, he's cute.<br /><br />In short, Idiocracy is a fatally funny glimpse into a possible future where people are named after product brand names (the president's middle name is Mountain Dew), hospital visits cost $5 billion dollars, there are mountains of garbage because no one is smart enough to figure out what to do with it all, and nobody cares about anything but money. All because only stupid people are breeding. Sounds familiar to me, somehow. Oh, yeah; it's what I think of when I see professional wrestling...<br /><br />Seriously, watch this movie. It's a good laugh and it will make you think.
| 1 |
positive
|
I saw this movie when it first came to the theaters in 1988 and though I knew it wasn't of award winning caliber...I kinda liked it. It tales the tale of 5 former cub scouts reuniting to take on the one task they never got to finish as kids - which is to climb Mt. Whitehead. Of course now the cub scouts are all grown up and have developed their personalities in a variety of ways, but none too differently than they were as children. Richard Lewis is still neurotic, Richard Belzer is still a playboy, Franklyn Ajaye is still sort of the Dear Abby of the group, and Tim Thomerson is still the surfer dude of the group. Of course the top billed star is Louie Anderson, a "true believer" in everything Cub Scout related. He still lives in the same house with his mother, still goes over the Cub Scout manual daily, is brave, reverent and clean, and is the one who reunites the others for one more grand adventure in Scouting. Compounding their task, however, is the Grunski brothers, two bullies drummed out of the Cub Scouts by the above mentioned. By coincidence they run into their old den and decide to harass them a bit, albeit harmlessly. Not so harmlessly is three escaped convicts, who think Pack 7 is from the FBI and are intent on wiping them out. All in all, the movie still has bits of charm. Observe Richard Lewis trying to get comfortable on a folding cot, for example, and you have a really funny bit going for you. Upon further review, the entire film needed more of that type of observational humor. It doesn't hold up well after all these years but still remains a guilty pleasure.
| 0 |
negative
|
'Blade' would be an extremely above-average comic-book, vampire-hunter action/horror if it weren't for two minor flaws. #1 I loved seeing the all-but invincible Blade/Snipes do his slicing and dicing, but the whole "Yes!" fist/punch was literally a letdown. #2 Bad, no make that horrible, CGI even for 1998 standards. This is mainly in the last third, but some sprinkled throughout. Okay, despite those minor infractions, I really enjoyed this movie. All actors did a suburb job and the fact that this now looks like yet another 'Matrix' rip-off is hilarious considering this came out one year prior. So maybe 'The Matrix' copied 'Blade.' At any rate, it's a very movie for multiple genre-loving audiences: Comic Book geeks, action fanatics and horror/vampire lovers. So, we have Blade, half-man/half-vampire, or "day-walker" and his accomplish, Whisler (a la "Batman and Alfred") battling the undead who, apparently almost out number humans. Who knew? In a rare act of humanity (Blade's more of an antihero) our sword ninja/vamp rescues a newly infected (coincidentally) blood specialist/doctor. Meanwhile, trouble brews amongst the vampires as one wants (you guessed it) supreme power and needs Blade somehow to obtain it. It's not the most original concept, if you read what I just wrote, but still highly enjoyable. You will want to see Blade succeed, you will root for him despite his imperfections and mannerisms. And you will know what's coming as this is the typical act 1-2-3 of a comic book introduction movie. Still, watch this without trying to go too deep. Such as Vampire SPF-1000 "suntan lotion"? Really? What about the scalp? Wouldn't that still burn? Just like the money they burn for weapons? Uh, okay, I am going too deep. Once again, sit back and enjoy the techno-charged fun ride.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie is simply bad. First of all the story is just weird and it's not good written. It leaves you with questions when you're finished. Sometimes that's OK, but not in this case.<br /><br />The acting is nothing to write home about. The adults does a OK job, but the kids, taken in consideration they are kids, does not a good job. I thought the lead role, Ian Costello as Mickey, was worst. Well, to be honest I'm not sure that was the lead role. Never quite figured who this movie was about. Mickey or Pete.<br /><br />There were some shots that stood out, but over all there were nothing exiting about the cinematography. The sound, however, was better. There was a nice score. A little adventure kind of score, though this didn't look like an adventure film to me. It had some elements of an adventure film, but it was more of a drama. However, it was hard to tell who this film was meant for. Children? Hardly. There is too much language and violence for that. Adults? I don't know. It had to many elements of a children's movie in it. It was like a adult movie in a children movie wrapping.<br /><br />The story was just weird. I don't have much of an idea of what it really was about. You was thrown right in to it without knowing anything, but there were all the time references to something you felt you should know. The fact that the children's parents were dead for instance and that Mickey blamed Pete for it. You expected to get to know what happened , but you never got.<br /><br />All together this movie was bad and a waste of time. There was no drive in it. Nothing to really move the story forward. This is not what you spend your Saturday night on.
| 0 |
negative
|
I was about 14 years old as I saw the musical version of Lost Horizon. I loved the film so much as well as the songs that I went several times to the cinema to see it again and again. My mother bought the LP and I learnt the songs off by heart, just as I did with "The sound of Music" (which people hardly know in Austria). I think the problem with some of these self-appointed critics who's comments get published is that they don't have a romantic soul and didn't see the film through the eyes of a young teenager. Maybe he is an Ingrid Bergman fan but I was happy with Liv Ullman. Could Ingrid Bergman sing and dance? What was so great about her? Perhaps the critic did n't appreciate it because he needed new glasses or contact lenses since he sees a close resemblance between Liv Ullman and Bill Clinton. It was the idea and story behind the film, the philosophy, which was the most important and interesting factor and a musical in colour just made it more entertaining and enjoyable without damaging the intellectually appealing aspects. It's a shame that many other films with so called great actors and actresses with unimportant themes / stories are utterly boring in comparison.
| 1 |
positive
|
One of my absolute favorite childhood films. The Chipmunk adventure packs incredible fun geared for young and old alike. The animation is lively and colorful and the film itself boasts some of the best songs ever put in an animated feature. Who could forget the dynamic "Boys/Girls of Rock n' Roll", the exciting "Diamond Dolls", and the heartrending "My Mother"? <br /><br />This should be considered a nostalgic classic animated gem from the eighties. It's too bad they don't make them like this anymore. Most animated films today resort to violence, crude humor, or sentimental mush... except of course the folks from Pixar.<br /><br />BOTTOM LINE: An amazing and unforgettable adventure for all ages.
| 1 |
positive
|
Created in 1928, and originally named Mortimer before Walt Disney changed his name (because his wife convinced him), Mickey Mouse has become the staple of the Disney brand. I always thought this cartoon was the first ever cartoon to feature Mickey, it is in fact his third, but it doesn't matter, for a six minute animated short it is enjoyable. The story sees Mickey piloting a steamboat until Captain Pete takes him off the bridge, stopping to pick up cargo, and Minnie Mouse missing the boat. Being lifted on she drops her music sheets and a goat eats them, Mickey helps her crank it's tail and play the tune, and getting some other animals to be percussion, until Pete comes along again to stop him, making Mickey peel potatoes. Mickey Mouse was number 53 on The 100 Greatest Pop Culture Icons, and he was number 31 on The 100 Greatest Cartoons. Very good!
| 1 |
positive
|
Cuba Gooding,Jr. will win the Oscar for BEST ACTOR in 2003.And Ed Harris will win for BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR. What a beautiful and poignant film it is but be sure to bring along a box of tissues because if this film doesn't get to you, then you have ice water in your veins.<br /><br />It was 1976. The setting was in South Carolina and the Civil Rights Act was about ten years old. We have a white high school football coach and teacher, Ed Harris. Then there is a black retarded frightened but pleasant fellow, Cuba Gooding, whose greatest possessions, including a radio, are piled into a shopping cart which is also used as his bicycle.<br /><br />Ed Harris takes a keen interest in the fellow for a reason explained much later on in the film. He gives Cuba the nickname "Radio" and what follows is an absoutely riveting, engrossing, poignant exploration of the human soul.<br /><br />The movie is nothing short of a masterpiece.
| 1 |
positive
|
First off, I'm an American -- I haven't seen any comments on IMDb about this series yet from a U.S. viewer. Secondly, I work in the television business in development. So I wallow in much of the sludge that comes out of American broadcast programming. "Unit One" is an example of television that's a throwback to what I would attribute as '70s-style scripting, feature-wise. Namely, those films made by young autueurs who had free rein to make the dramas feel more realistic and to allow for organic character development. It tacks more along the lines of stellar British dramas like "Cracker" and "Prime Suspect" as well as Australia's brilliant "Underbelly." "Unit One" features stand-alone cases that are committed, then solved, each week. The mysteries aren't extraordinary or particularly byzantine. They usually center around one single twist, clocking in generally at the 40 minute mark, and resolution is neatly wrapped up in the 15 minutes thereafter. What makes this series a breath of fresh air is that it features main characters that you are hooked on and find relatable by episode 2. These are real, breathing, alive characters that have personal baggage, yet it's not a talky, batty type of baggage that American flotsam such as "Grey's Anatomy" or "Desperate Housewives" spoons out. These are realistic individuals whose backstories unfold leisurely over the course of the series, as if you work with them on a daily basis. After the mindless decade of "CSI's," "NCIS's," and "Criminal Minds," along with their subsequent spawns, it's refreshing to actually sit down to watch friends you want to spend time with, as is the case with "Unit One." The quippy banter, the unemotional wooden dialogue, and the over-the-top jeopardy that those American series I mentioned bludgeon us with each week are absurd compared to the nuance and the quiet resonance you get with this remarkable Danish series. I'm on episode 7 of the first season, but I've already bought all four seasons and am in for the long haul. If you need explosions and farcically-hopped up testosterone, along with music by The Who and fast-cutting, neon-lit, jittery palsy-cam action with cipher-like main characters as your main diet of television drama viewing, I suggest you stay away from this series. If you are an adult with a hunger for subtle, poignant, thoughtful and, yes, sometimes straight-forward procedural crime dramas, I urge you to check this show out.
| 1 |
positive
|
The fact that this cruddy series could elicit dozens of comments (much less hundreds of 'votes') speaks volumes as to the decline of Western (or at least American) civilization.<br /><br />Read Proust, you morons!! Or at least Dave Barry or Calvin and Hobbes anthologies.<br /><br />Chuck Norris. Wrap your brains around the fact that in order to rate or write about this series you'd have to have spent minutes..nay, HOURS...viewing this poor sod treading the boards and spewing lines with less emotional impact than the gal who used to call off the correct time on your local service.<br /><br />PLEASE DON'T WATCH THIS SHOW!! SPARE YOUR FEW REMAINING BRAIN CELLS!
| 0 |
negative
|
Sometimes the Academy doesn't recognize the potential of some films, or doesn't nominate them because they are controversial or strong. Sometimes they are nominated, but don't win anything (I hope this doesn't happen this year with "American Beauty"). This is exactly what happened with "Boogie Nights", which was the best film of 1997. The Academy preferred to give the best picture Oscar to "Titanic", a purely commercial and hollow film, and other awards to the overrated "Good Will Hunting" and the irritating "Full Monty". The other pictures which were nominated in the main category were "L.A. Confidential" and "As Good as it Gets", great movies, but "Boogie Nights" is still better and should have been remembered in more categories.<br /><br />This amazing film tells the story of Eddie Adams (Mark Wahlberg, in a surprisingly great performance), a 17 year old barman who takes the attention of Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds, in a redeeming acting), a director of porn films. Eddie has a special 'gift', and this helps him to get into the world of porn movies. He changes his name for Dirk Diggler and starts to make a huge success. But fame... doesn't last forever. Other characters also have their parallel stories- Amber Waves (Julianne Moore, perfect), Buck (Don Cheadle) and others, including Rollergirl (Heather Graham), an actress who accepts to do anything, but she has to be wearing her roller shoes.<br /><br />What could have been a banal, trivial film, turns into a perfect, memorable one in the hands of Paul Thomas Anderson. What makes "Boogie Nights" such a great film is its execution, added to a clever, well written screenplay, great soundtrack, etc. Each character is very well developed, and each of them has his/her importance in the context. Each feeling, weakness, fear, emotion is explored, resulting in a masterpiece of the modern American cinema.<br /><br />"Boogie Nights" is a strong, impacting picture that should be seen by everyone who really likes cinema. Under a plot that seems banal at first impression, there is a wonderful story of highs and downs, things that we face in our lives. It is an amazing portrait of the end of the '70s and the beginning of the '80s, exactly an age of highs and downs. That's what makes this film so special and a true masterpiece. <br /><br />10/10
| 1 |
positive
|
Critics love this movie. I personally found it senseless and tasteless. This is the millionth time I've fallen into the "critics love it" trap and came out wishing someone would throw boiling hot water on my testicles because it was less painful than watching the movie. There are many scenes that are completely unnecessary. A warning to Animal lovers: Don't see this movie if you don't want to see sheep killed and molested.<br /><br />If you want to see a good Asian film, see Afrika. If you want to see a film about escaped convicts, see the Gene Wilder/Richard Pryor classic Stir Crazy. Avoid 9 Souls like the plague.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is the second and best in the Hunting Trilogy! What makes it the best is the clever dialogue!<br /><br />Bugs: Do you want to shoot me now or wait till you get home?<br /><br />It was kind of funny how they kept that going through out the short!
| 1 |
positive
|
It gives the ordinary guy/girl the chance to be on television singing as their favourite stars.<br /><br />For the majority of the time, they sound like the singer they are meant to be portraying.<br /><br />Another twist to it - A team of make up people and costumers dress the contestant up like that singer. They might not look like them but the likelihood of getting someone that sounds like a person looking exactly the same as them are very slim.<br /><br />It's a load of fun for your Saturday night - and the contestants aren't raging wannabes like they are on another TV singing show. The fact that there are no prizes involved and it is for fun means that it will attract a different type of person.<br /><br />The only gripe i have is with the Kids version - it looks like they have done the round of stage schools- what happened to the normal kids?
| 1 |
positive
|
I am partly a fan of Miyazaki's work. I say "partly" because most of his films fall into two categories: brilliant, and boring. Sadly this film falls into the later category.<br /><br />This film suffers from the same fundamental problems as Miyazaki's recent film "Howl's Moving Castle". An intriguing premise is set up, but then immediately reduced to little more than a backdrop for some unfathomable events that only serve to confuse the plot rather than explain it.<br /><br />The first third of the film reveals the post-apocalyptic world the story is set in, and actually looks like an very interesting story is about to unfold. From then on things go down hill. The middle part of the film is mostly made up of thinly-veiled eco-propaganda, and the ending is heavily marred by the reliance on the kind of impenetrable spiritualism which ruins a large number of Japanese animated films.<br /><br />Overall the film feels as though someone ripped out every other page from the script before passing it on the the animators. What is left is something which is visually stunning (although sadly the version I saw was an Nth-generation copy, with poor colour - which gives rise to the common myth that Nausicaa shows her bare bottom when flying), but which makes little sense and ultimately left me confused.
| 0 |
negative
|
i can't believe people are giving bad reviews about this movie! i wonder why......maybe because of the book..... i have to admit, it really doesn't follow the book... for sure...the book by dean koontz is much better... but the movie is also good as well!!! it has the suspense...the acting are good... especially michael ironside, whom have given a superb acting in this movie!!!<br /><br />come one guyz...give this movie a chance...there are still lot more worse movie than this....like sum of all fears...phantoms...the da vinci code...this are some of the worse movie i have seen...really boring if compared to watchers which really have great elements in the movie...this movie contains great suspense and non stop action!!! i'm looking for this movie...but it is really hard to be found on DVD...<br /><br />by da way...i really recommended this movie to everybody... watch it!!!! you will never regret !!!<br /><br />10/10*
| 1 |
positive
|
I rented this obscure aussie relic a few years ago to show at a friend`s place and it was an instant success.The classic tale of the wizard of oz with a decidedly cornball 70`s australian twist.The acting isn`t exactly shakespeare society stuff here,but later ,"Mad max"star Bruce Spence is a beautifully understated surfie/scarecrow and there are some wonderfull comic turns by Gary Wadell and Robin Ramsay as a deliciously 70`s camp fairy godmother/father character.Also note the musical contribution from ex-Daddy Cool frontman Ross Wilson on the title song.In a similar vein to later-day aussie comedies such as "Priscilla queen of the desert".Good fun.
| 1 |
positive
|
Dead or Alive: Final, the movie that supposedly brings together the three films in the very loose Dead or Alive trilogy, and connected mostly by its stars, Riki Takeiuchi and Sho Aikawa and that each film has its share of bizarro-world fixtures and neuroses and heaps of violence, is admittedly the weakest of the lot. That none of the three films ends up being a disappointment is less a testament to the creativity of the material but to the pound-for-pound guts that director Takashi Miike takes with the surroundings and the material. Here he presents an overtly dystopian future, however low-key, where a homosexual mayor/dictator (Richard Chen) has the entire village drugged except for a group of rebels. There's also replicants- robots- in this year of 2346, one of them is Ryo (Aikawa), a robot of complete lethal skill but also with the capacity to love and learn and so forth. Then a cop, Takeshi (Takeiuchi) happens to be the mayor's top guard. But things start to unravel on both sides, Ryo teaming up with the rebels and Takeshi with his employer, though blood-soaked mishaps like a hostage trade-off gone bad, and with Takeshi finding out his wife and son are robots (not done in an Alien mood, mind you, just suddenly as if in a the power went out), and that he himself is one as well. And it all leads up to one last, inexplicable showdown between the two men.<br /><br />Strange that there's yet another film where Miike has peaks and valleys here, sometimes finding that middle ground of success where science fiction can have some meaning to it. But there really isn't anything to take from this story, except that the mayor/dictator is a dingbat with no back-story who gets his rocks off making sure his drug stops couples from getting pregnant and that everything remains under control. He also has along with him his love slave, I'd guess, in the hilarious non-speaking part of a saxophone player who also doubles sometimes as a human fixture when not plugging away the moody blues. Meanwhile, we get the conventional sides to Ryo and Takeshi's stories, and they're never uninteresting, just not totally convincing enough to hold interest. Of course Miike isn't above having some fun, like when Takeshi plops Michelle (Maria Chen) in to the water to get her to swim after a near-assassination attempt on the mayor, or in having the original rebel leader speaking English for no good reason at all. There's even a playful homage to old sci-fi cartoons at the start of the film. But there's nothing very compelling substance-wise, with the exception of Takeshi's minor turns at becoming "good" midway through the film (helping one couple get by with clearance to have a kid), and mostly Miike's strengths this time are purely stylistically and in the choice of locations and sets.<br /><br />It's like a grungy Japanese Alphaville where everything still has a contemporary feel through all of the special effects. And I really liked the yellow-green tint Miike used through the movie, as it impacted very well in outdoor scenes and added just enough grittiness in the indoor scenes. But as for peaks and valleys, one sees this ever more clearly- and the sci-fi movie channel level of visual effects, with maybe a few more dollars put into it- during the climax. This contains some of the funniest material in the most delirious, Freudian sensibility from the director, even if it has to get started by unbearable contrivance; the way that Ryo and Takeshi finally meet up is sort of random and just a means for the producers to try and cheaply tie together the past two films, when it wasn't needed. On the other hand, in terms of the sheer guilty entertainment value of a flick like Miike's where one sees something totally unexpected and very crudely sexual, it ranks right up there with the best scenes in Happiness of the Katakuris and Visitor Q. Overall, Dead or Alive: Final is a cheesy 90 minute effort that doesn't take itself TOO seriously, and is better off all the more for its wicked contrivances, militaristic decay and cultural hang-ups put on pulp-level display.
| 1 |
positive
|
What a pleasure. This is really a parody. Only french people can do that kind of thing without being coarse. And as a result, you spend a really good time watching Jean Dujardin playing the dumb. Most of the movie stands on his shoulders, and he has them wide enough to make this movie a good one. He has the perfect way of overdoing the James Bond kind of guy that he is no match for Mike Meyers in Austin Powers for example. The dialogs are also good enough to keep up the attention of the spectator, with a lot of stupid jokes, that's really perfect. Both of the women having the main parts in the movie bear the comparison with the main character, and that was a challenge. There is no really plot in this movie, but that's not what is expected in this kind of movie. You just wish to laugh one hour 40 minutes, and that's precisely what the movie manage to do. It deserves the success it has in France
| 1 |
positive
|
I couldn't. I was bored, not just because the acting was terrible and the tragic story was simply a b-movie whose plot was all about the cannibalism, but the fact I was watching a subtitle foreign film, which doesn't bother me at all, but was STILL dubbed.<br /><br />The "special effects" were awful. As the back of the plane splits off, you can see the model is hollow as it "breaks away" in the phony snow. Most of the movie takes place on a sound stage that clearly is not real and almost looks like a play, as the "sounds" of snow blowing all over are heard but not actually scene.<br /><br />"But how what will they eat? They have no food" one military person (It's never clear what this guy does or why he's in charge) says, which I'm sure no one ever said in reality or even thought about food, since they were concerned if the people were alive, not how they'd eat. It was simply a stupid line written to point out that, yes, they will have to eat the dead bodies to survive.<br /><br />When they finally decide to eat the bodies, one man finds one shirtless body, who despite being in the snow for however long, is not remotely frozen, in fact, his flesh is very flexible and fresh. He cuts the fresh meat off his back, that again, is not frozen or even cold it appears, and this scene goes on for five minutes. That's where I had to stop. The remake "Alive" was a far superior film about trying to survive in a horrible situation that I'm sure the real survivors praised whereas I can't imagine any of them had anything nice to say about this version. It was simply about eating dead bodies and everything else was secondary. Avoid.
| 0 |
negative
|
It didn't feel like a movie, and was thankfully short (under 90minutes), it felt more like a commercial of possibilties in computer graphics: Most of the special effects are great, to be sure. But that cerainly don't a great or even a good movie make. Not saying it's absolutely worthless viewing, since it's possible to see what are the possibilities in CGI or GCI, or what ever it's called.<br /><br />As I read somewhere, "You can't fix it in the cutting room", a bad story and non-directed actors, can't be fixed in the cutting room or even with the most magnificent special effects! Things can be improved in the cutting room if they have a real director and material to work from.<br /><br />However they thought this could be sold in USA is anyones idea, since USA is the crooks.<br /><br />And isn't it sooo typical of low budget stories, they have to create an imaginative country south of Mexico??<br /><br />Well Well I gace it 2! Just because of the special effects, the rest is absolute trash!
| 0 |
negative
|
If I were to rate this movie based solely on the acting/script/production, etc., I would give it one star. All these elements are awful. I can partially forgive this, in light of the film's $250 budget. The movie does contain many entertaining scenes, mostly those of the unintentionally funny variety. Some of these include: a 14-year-old kid stealing and driving a bus, teenage hooligans (one of whom is sporting a Joy Division t-shirt) getting scared away from harassing the film's protagonists by a woman brandishing an obviously fake firearm, and an encounter with a plastic bull's skull in the Arizona desert.<br /><br />I would have given it 5 stars just for the entertainment value were it not for the presence of that horribly annoying, morally pontificating old granny. I had to dock one star just because of her. Who the *bleep* makes a wedding cake with black frosting, anyhow?
| 0 |
negative
|
The Dekalog 5 may be considered a violent accusation against the death sentence, according to the fifth commandment "Thou shalt not kill": not by chance it puts the concept of a State fully complied with the provisions of an unjust law on the same plane as the figure of a Murderer. "But the law might not imitate the nature, it might correct it," states Piotr, the counsel for the defense, a real catalyst character, "the punishment is a form of vengeance aiming at returning evil for evil without preventing the crime. But in the name of whom the law takes its revenge? Really in the name of the innocent ones?". The horrifying and detailed sequences of the last half hour of a man sentenced to death give value to the uselessness of the deterrent function applied to the death penalty with the purpose of intimidating all potential criminals. "Desperate plights don't demand desperate remedies", Kieslowski says in his message, teaching us how unrighteous can be the act of disobedience to a commandment of God that judges punishment the same way as crime is judged. There are three different moral attitudes here: the innate sense of rebellion of the MURDERER aiming at rousing the hostile torpor of the surrounding environment; the strong sense of chronic indifference of the VICTIM inclined to laugh at other people's requirements; the deserving behavior of the COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE always ready to fight against adversity, in favor of human life. The struggle for life is ruthlessly vivisected all of the time; the characters are plunged into scenes of affliction and distress, in an urban landscape accented with greenish tones and seen in its own reflections through the windshield of a taxi. Everything in "Dekalog 5" conveys a dreadful sense of estrangement and isolation: descriptions of a waste undergrowth of violence and folly, scenes of precarious conditions of work, sinister appearances of buildings immersed in an anonymous aura of desolation, aimless wanderings through disenchanting environments. Jazek, the main character, is compelled to struggle with an opponent stronger than himself: a town completely wrapped in profound indifference, apparently hostile, deaf to all his mute calls for help, while a faded photo of a little girl in a first communion dress goes on gnawing his soul. He's irremediably directing his steps towards a disconnected route to damnation seen through the deformations of the 18 mm. wide angle camera lens aiming at distorting every details, altering the reality, making it fade out in remote and alien echoes. Kieslowski doesn't bring extenuating circumstances seasoned with honey-tongued tones of melodrama in favor of the defendant, differently from some Hollywood stereotypes like "I want to live" (by Robert Wise). He doesn't slip on the banana peel of useless pathetic scenes to extenuate Jazek's guilt and to mitigate the brutality of the crime, not interested at all in proximate psychological motivations to justify any display of extreme or violent behaviors and refusing to include any useless judicial proceedings. In other words, in Kieslowsky's opinion "a crime is always a crime": according to the principle of "par condicio" he puts the prosecutor on the same plane as the condemned man, using many signs or symbols to represent a society seen in the most sinister light. And we can't remain indifferent: even if we don't agree with him, Jazek's screams of anguish touch our hearts with pity in the same manner that Terri Schiavo's entreating eyes do.
| 1 |
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.