text
stringlengths 32
13k
| target
class label 2
classes | evaluation_predictions
sequence |
|---|---|---|
Out of the handful of alternative titles in English, "The Sexorcist" is definitely the most appropriate one, since this is basically just a shameless rip off of William Friedkin's classic horror film in which they replaced 13-year-old Linda Blair with the 19-year-old Stella Carnacina only so that she could gratuitously show her ravishing naked body. I'm not sure what exactly Satan tries to accomplish here, but he exclusively seems to possess the young girl to play sexual tricks on her! Poor Danila masturbates around the clock and tries to seduce priests and even her own father into having sex with her. The young girl is introduced as a smart and ambitious theology-student with an odd-looking boyfriend (driving a stupid yellow car) and loving, albeit adulterous parents. When she takes a peculiar crucifix home to renovate, the ancient relic comes to life and no less than Satan himself (played by Ivan Rassimov of "Jungle Holocaust" and "Planet of the Vampires") starts to torment her. The overlong masturbation sessions and some bizarre nightmare sequences cover about three quarters of the movie, and then finally director Mario Garriazzo begins with the actual exorcism. That final segment is even more embarrassing and amateurish! The priests don't really do anything apart from saying some vague prayers but, somehow, Danila seems cured all of a sudden. There isn't much gore, the dialogues are horrible and the producers seem to compensate every little flaw by adding more sleaze! This is one of the strangest Italian exploitation efforts of the seventies (why the hell are they referring to "The Rocky Horror Picture Show"?), but definitely not one of the best. If you fancy clones of "The Exorcist", I recommend "Demon Witch Child", "Beyond the Door" and "The Antichrist". | 0neg
| [
1.7607421875,
-2.142578125
] |
Let me just say - I love the horror genre to the extent that I see every single one that I can get my hands on regardless (except really low quality b-movie horrors which I could do without) and recently have become a big fan of Eastern horrors. Little did I know that a Korean horror would be the one that tops my list beating off heavyweights such as the Japanese Ringu (or the American Ring), or even quality US movies such as the Sixth Sense and The Others, and the widely acclaimed Hong Kong horror 'The Eye'.<br /><br />Previously 'The Ring' had stood as my favourite horror but it seems to me that I prefer the beauty of 'The Tale of Two Sisters' any day - the story is extraordinary and rather open to interpretation thus allowing repeat viewings although chances are you'll want to watch this again and again just because the movie is so masterfully shot... the story is likely one of the best in the genre to date. The acting is top notch too from the entire cast and the scares when they come have the potential to rattle you like anything within the Ring - I did find myself glued to the screen at those points unable to take my eyes off. <br /><br />Still I am glad it didn't come back to haunt me later that Sadako/Samara did from the Ring - after all such feelings are unpleasant and The Tale of Two Sisters leaves you with an uneasy feeling, but one that hopefully won't leave you without sleep but leave you satisfied that you have seen something quite special. But do remember.. if you don't understand the plot after the first viewing, a repeat viewing is more than advised.. I personally didn't have time for this since it was late so I flicked through scenes on the DVD, some numerous times until I had a good synopsis in my head and after looking on the net, seemed Ihad pretty much nailed it on the widely agreed interpretation. And the satisfaction from solving a puzzle like that is wonderful.<br /><br />All in all - a masterfully crafted horror that is unlikely to produce the same 'level' remake (its been purchased by Dreamworks) simply because of the Korean content and everyone is advised to catch this in the theaters or on DVDs while they can... its one of the best you will get. Unfortunately due to the type of movie this is, there is no way to even talk about the story without spoilers so its best to do what I did - watch it without knowing a single thing except its 'a tale of two sisters'! And be prepared for something that is unlikely to be matched for some time. | 1pos
| [
-1.7333984375,
1.9560546875
] |
This movie has it all. Great actors, good dialog, drama, comedy, and excellent writing and directing by Paul Thomas Anderson. I have seen this film several times and enjoy it more each time. It doesn't get old, it is consistently entertaining and stimulating. Easily Burt Reynolds best role, and he does a great job. John C. Reilly and Don Cheadle also give excellent comedic performances. There is not a weak element in this film. | 1pos
| [
-2.5859375,
2.861328125
] |
watch this movie. it's truly a good ride through the difficulties of making a indie movie, and what happens when it blows up in the film maker's face. there's a lot of stuff about punk rock, and the philosophy behind that movement and it's relationship to this project. so if you're into old punk, American punk, you'll dig it.... but, beware, there's a ton of bad acting bits from the failed project that are incorporated... yet they do come off funny at times. and, actually, some of the best parts are listening to people who have never been involved in movie making pontificate and what they went through in the three year period that it took to put this together. so anyone out there that's about to make a film, especially if you haven't been to film school or worked in the field, you should watch this and learn from the film maker's mistakes. | 1pos
| [
-1.1845703125,
1.314453125
] |
Don't bother to check for logic. There is none. But on the other hand, there are MANY really great movies that totally lack logic, so why bother?<br /><br />I both like and dislike this film. I like it because the action sequences in the air are really great, you get to see a lot of dogfighting. I also like the F-16, which is a very cool plane.<br /><br />But there are just too many goofs to make me really enjoy it. I guess it's not fair to wish for SOME sort of continuity, as it is hard to make a really good fighter film - but I also think there should be some sense of reason.<br /><br />And I have a question: do they fly from California to the Middle East in F-16s without air refueling? I'd like to see that happening. | 0neg
| [
-1.3134765625,
1.443359375
] |
This movie defines the word "confused". All the actors stay true to the script. More's the pity, because the acting is fine, but the script is a confused pastiche of pseudo-psycho-analytic random ideas. The pacing is mind-numbingly slow, and the soft-focus-lens cinematography gets on the nerves quickly. I give it 4 out of 10. | 0neg
| [
1.1240234375,
-1.5517578125
] |
A truly excellent look at the world and the realities of being a heroin addict. The movie is one that will hit much too close to home to those who were involved in the drug culture and have knowledge of what being(or being around) a heroin addict really is. Good movie, which will never truly be outdated. Excellent performances by all involved and the minimalist set is Preminger's way of showing how bleak a JUNKIE'S world can become. Worth a look--an education of sorts. The golden arm is a worried look at the truth of the underground life of pain a junkie lives in. | 1pos
| [
-2.4765625,
2.71484375
] |
This would definitely not have been my kind of movie, but my husband saw it on TV and said it was really good. So, on his recommendation, I bought a copy, since I didn't know if it would ever be on TV again. I had never heard of anybody in it except Armand Assante. At first I had a hard time getting into the story, because the first part of the movie is a jumble of images-- and it doesn't make much sense. It is only later in the movie that it all comes together. The scene-cutting- if that's what it's called, is a bit jarring-- it sometimes looks as if a few frames have been cut out of each scene, and the scenes are jerky--but I guess that was done to add to the unusualness (if that's a word). The story veers here and there, and just about the time you have it all figured out, everything turns upside down and you have to readjust your thinking as to who is the bad guy and who is not. Or bad woman. The acting is very good-- I kept thinking how much Norman Reedus looks like Leo Decaprio. The ending was a real twist, totally unexpected, which I liked. A good show. | 1pos
| [
-1.369140625,
1.53515625
] |
A special unit of four police detectives are dispensing justice in their own unique way in 1950s Los Angeles. Nick Nolte plays Max Hoover, the unit's lead officer and his partners are played by Michael Madsen, Chazz Palminteri and Chris Penn. Also starring are Melanie Griffith, Jennifer Connelly and John Malkovich among others. Quite an impressive list of names. Unfortunately that is the only thing even remotely impressive about this film.<br /><br />Our story begins when young Allison Pond, played by Connelly, turns up dead in a remote area of town currently under development. Our band of four detectives is called in and it is immediately obvious that Nolte's Max Hoover is going to be taking a very personal interest in this case. We will soon find out that Allison, in addition to knowing Hoover quite well, was also involved with some rather important military and government types who may have had reason to want her dead. But who exactly was involved and why exactly would they want this seemingly harmless woman dead? Hoover and crew set out to find out. Sounds like an interesting premise but unfortunately it goes nowhere.<br /><br />Despite the impressive array of names, the acting here leaves much to be desired. Nolte is overacting, Madsen seems incredibly bored, Palminteri and Malkovich come off as caricatures, Penn has hardly anything to do and Griffith is dull as can be. By far the best performance is Connelly's in all too fleeting flashback sequences. The dialogue throughout the film is forced and wooden. The sense of drama you would expect from a mystery of this type is missing altogether. Nothing dramatic really happens. In fact nothing at all seems to happen for the bulk of the picture. Instead we just slog along towards a rather ludicrous and incredibly disappointing climax. When the "mystery" is solved you may find yourself saying, "Oh come on now, is that all there is?" But it gets worse as after the mystery is solved we get a completely ridiculous and utterly unbelievable action sequence. And even then we are made to suffer further as another awful, badly acted, completely unnecessary scene is tacked on at the end. And then mercifully it is over. And not a moment too soon. | 0neg
| [
2.5703125,
-2.943359375
] |
Last night, I am sitting in my TV room, beer in hand, bowl of pretzels on the TV tray & I decide to put the movie "Monster Man" into my trusty VCR. Expecting a fun-filled, gory, crash & bash cheesefest of a movie. What do I get instead? One of THE most silly, stupid, unfrightening & predictable films I have ever had the displeasure of sitting through. And what's even worse, all during the(& I use this next phrase loosely) "sex scene" the girl keeps all her clothes on! I'll make this summary short & sweet: mix "Dude Where's My Car" (about a good 1/2 of the film) with a very watered down "Hitcher", add a redneck version of the antagonist from "I Madman" as the primary villain & finally some incoherent black magic mumbo jumbo & you'll kind of get a clue how rotten this movie is. It's also utterly predictable throughout. The only notable factor to this buddy movie disguised as a "horror film" is that some of the moments between the 2 guys (even though the "hero" is one MAJOR annoying geek & the other is a Jack Black clone) are kind of funny (just mediocre funny i.e..like most of SNL skits). Other than that, "Monster Man" is a monster mess! 3/10 (This one I'll be handing out at Halloween time-just hope after the person views it I don't get my house egged or worse) | 0neg
| [
2.322265625,
-2.71875
] |
I haven't been a fan of Madonna for quite sometime now, however, I thought I would comment on this film.<br /><br />This film mistaken. One of them, as well as Madonna, was panned by the critics. They were highly mistaken and many potential viewers were turned off by the bad reviews.<br /><br />First, Madonna does an excellent job in this movie which was one of her first. She plays a ditsy blonde in the film, she is far from a ditsy blonde in real life. Most critics were somewhat prejudiced by her singing fame and didn't give her a fair shake. When you view this film I hope that you understand that the accent and the goofiness is just acting. She was absolutely hysterical as was the film.<br /><br />Griffen Dunne is another person who was not given a fair review in the film. If you take a look at his filmography, you will see he is quite an accomplished actor.<br /><br />As far as the movie itself, this is something similar to pretty woman, but came 3 years before the Roberts, Gere success. It's a goof-ball comedy with lots of site gags, slapstick and one liners. Some of the comedy is deadpan and takes a comedy aficionado to really appreciate the more subtle humor.<br /><br />I know this doesn't tell you much about the movie, however, I hope this helps dispel any belief that this is a poor movie. It is absolutely worth renting for an enjoyable night of great fun.<br /><br />Peace.<br /><br />Gary | 1pos
| [
-1.083984375,
1.2138671875
] |
This is a great example of what happened at Comedy Central after Dave Chapelle left. Here's the problem with Carlos Mencia. Firstly, his birth name is Ned Holness, and was known that until he was 18, when he switched his name to Ned Arnel Mencia. He was born in Honduras, though he acts like he's from Mexico. He grew up in the United States, as well.<br /><br />I might be able to forgive all that crap, but...<br /><br />He's been caught stealing other peoples material. Joe Rogan has been his most vocal critic in this way. The Stereotype Olympics was an idea he ripped off a couple of DJ's from Miami. He has stolen jokes from Bill Cosby. He stole George Lopez's material in his own HBO special (13 minutes of it).<br /><br />He thinks what he's doing is so original, but Dave Chapelle and Lisa Lampanelli have been cracking on race for years before this idiot (amoung others).<br /><br />This show will crash and burn. The word Beaner can't last that long before it gets old. He hasn't done anything new since the first episode.<br /><br />"Wanna hear a joke? A Beaner jumping a fence!! That's funny for 3 Seasons!" Not.<br /><br />Awful. | 0neg
| [
2.076171875,
-2.4921875
] |
(spoilers) Horrifyingly enough, I have actually SEEN the film that this horrid film was a sequel to. It was called Ator the Fighting Eagle, and I saw it when I was just 8 years old. It made such an awful impression on me that i never forgot it. I've been an MST3K fan for a long time, so when Cavedwellers came out on tape I bought it. I was horrified to realize that it was a sequel to the wretched Ator movie that i'd seen so long ago! Ator's costume has, somehow, gotten ever skimpier than the last time i saw him. How can he wear that tiny little bikini? Doesn't he care that it shows off the fact that he has no...errr...package? And poor Thong...he gets no lines and no girl, and has to follow that frizzy haired girly doofus Ator around all the time. Has anyone else noticed that Miles O'Keefe walks like a woman? No wonder he's not interested in the pretty if somewhat lackluster Meela. The evil but prancy bad guy Zor is more to his taste, I'm sure. I loved Zor's cardboard spray painted swan helmet, and the way he spent all his time trying to touch some part of Ator. The fight scenes are so badly choreographed that its a wonder that the swords ever manage to connect. The dull old guy spends all of his time standing around looking depressed. Ator drinks from a cup given to him by a guy who hates him, and then looks surprised that they drugged him. He must be pretty smart though-he invented a hang glider in the space pf five minutes ,then flew it into a rift in the space/time continuum so that he travelled briefly into 17th century Bulgaria. That was after he stabbed the giant snake puppet, of course, and saved the post coital Meela while she sat around doing absolutely nothing. The real hero of the movie was Thong, who saved Ator several times from his boundless stupiditiy, and killed the evil Zor in the bargain. Kudos to Thong, the only competent person in the whole film. | 0neg
| [
2.11328125,
-2.46875
] |
I don't understand the people here. The film is neither as good as as bad as some people say here. Except for De Kok the acting is OK. The problem with the film is mainly the script. The characters are not believable. The sex is done okay, but the psychology behind the people makes very little sense. The film doesn't look good, but what do you expect? The film was shot for very little money on video. Off course then it doesn't look as good as a normal film, duh! The one thing I do agree on is that the music is bad. Sounds like a cheap soft erotic film from the '80's. The film is not good, okay, but you have to give some credit for pulling this of without any money. | 0neg
| [
2.08203125,
-2.533203125
] |
Sherlock Holmes films from the classic Universal era tend to range in quality. This range goes from very good to above average, with none of their output being abysmal, or astoundingly brilliant. Sherlock Holmes and The Secret Weapon fits snugly into the middle ground quality-wise, and, as ever, it's an enjoyable outing that fans of the series, like myself, will enjoy very much. This film sees Holmes in the middle of a World War 2 plot by the evil Nazi's to steal a Swiss scientist's invention, which could turn out to be a key element on the battlefield. The World War 2 Sherlock Holmes films don't tend to be as good as the ones such as The Scarlet Claw where Holmes is conducting private investigations, as they're usually dogged by too much propaganda or a plot that is more to do with the war than the mystery. This one, however, pretty much stays away from both and by putting the focus on Holmes and his investigation, the film works much better. Perhaps Universal saw what brought down the earlier Voice of Terror and changed the focus because of that.<br /><br />Basil Rathbone once again puts in an excellent maverick performance as the ace detective and while Nigel Bruce doesn't feature as much as normal, it's nice to see him when he does. The two don't spent much time together, which is disappointing because their chemistry is always one of the best things about Holmes films; but this does allow more time for Holmes to showboat in various disguises, which is always lots of fun. Dennis Hoey's Lestrade is definitely my favourite of the secondary characters, and while he's not as funny as usual; his facial expressions are great, and his presence helps to emphasise how great Holmes is. His scene with Watson in a car following paint drops on the road is my favourite moment of the film. It's good to see Holmes' nemesis, Professor Moriarty return, even if it does seem like he's just been thrown in for the hell of it. Lionel Atwill's performance isn't as good as George Zucco's in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, as he never really convinces that he is indeed a brilliant mind; but seeing him lock horns with the protagonist is fun and it's nice to see him in the film to offset the World War 2 themes, which are never as interesting as Holmes himself. The film starts off as more of a thriller than a mystery flick; but once it gets going, it's hard to put down and this is a more than solid entry in Universal's oeuvre. | 1pos
| [
-2.2265625,
2.48828125
] |
This movie is not worth a descend review, it just made me decide that I am not going to go see the next Tarantino film. And I used to love Tarantino's films.<br /><br />Not artsy, not entertaining, not witty, not funny, nothing, just dull and stupid. If this movie would have been Tarantinos first, it would have also been his last.<br /><br />Tarantino has to get a grip on himself, otherwise his next movie is going to be 3 hours of meaningless, boring and uncool dialog. It seems like he has fallen in love with his dialog - and his love is blind.<br /><br />After you finish your popcorn's there's no reason to sit in a theater anymore. | 0neg
| [
2.5234375,
-2.939453125
] |
Here is another great film critics will love. The problem is that it is not a very good movie.<br /><br />The films premise is simple. Nine convicts escape a prison after the tenth one goes crazy and tells them where the treasure is.<br /><br />The first half has a lot of slapstick some of it very broad while the second half is a character driven descent into fantasy and melancholy.<br /><br />The two halves simply don't mix. Individual scenes do work very well (The guys crashing a friends house who has a new Filipino bride is hilarious While a later scene with the big guy working in the restaurant tugs at the heartstrings.) They simply don't mesh with each other.<br /><br />The movie as well is missing entire set-ups. One scene shows the guys desperately looking for change under a deserted vending machine to buy a snack. The very next scene has the whole crew in drag sitting down in a restaurant. Where did they get the dresses and wigs? (The crew includes both the big guy and a midget) How did they get all the clothes and money to buy the meal? And most puzzling is why are they in drag? They are clearly guys in drag and lets face it is there anything more memorable to witnesses than a big guy and a dwarf eating a meal dressed as women? I mention the big guy and the dwarf because besides the old guy everyone else seems to blend into each other. (In fact they wear matching white jumpsuits throughout most of the movie) The movie has very little character development in the first half and as a result the second half really lacks an emotional punch. As we are often trying to figure out who is who in their individual payoff scenes.<br /><br />Speaking of a drag the second half has all those wonderful sweeping camera shots and big emotional moments and great symbolism that makes a great film. It is also excruciatingly slow which makes for a boring movie.<br /><br />9 Souls is a big disappointment, the reviews gush about a great film and it's in there somewhere, good luck finding it yourself. | 0neg
| [
1.3525390625,
-1.7216796875
] |
I would watch this movie every time it was on cable and it never got old. Who can forget some of the best lines in film history? --- JOHNNY'S FAT BOY BURGERS!! JOHNNY'S FAT BOY BURGERS!! and LOOK BETWEEN THE GIANT MELONS! I used to wish I could run all over the city in a treasure hunt as fun as this. It's an all-time fave and I'm happy to hear that it's out on video! I'm positive that this is where MTV got its original premise for the Road Rules series. | 1pos
| [
-1.6474609375,
1.865234375
] |
In the 1930s, Hal Roach Studios was on top of the comedy world with such stars as Laurel and Hardy, Charley Chase and the Little Rascals. Most of these films are exceptional and have withstood the passing of time. However, a lesser-known Roach product was the pairing of Thelma Todd and Zasu Pitts (later, Todd was paired with the equally untalented Patsy Kelly). Try as I might, I just can't stand these pictures--they just aren't funny. Plus, unlike Laurel and Hardy, there was not an ounce of chemistry between Todd and her two co-stars. Before you just think I am a crank, understand that I have seen and reviewed several hundred Roach films as well as many other early comedies, so I am well acquainted with the genre and within the genre, this team is among the worst. Part of the reason I think I am right about the team is that as a lower-tier team at Roach, they were given all the scripts no one else wanted. If Stan or Ollie hated a given plot idea, it was often given to Todd and Pitts/Kelly--and usually it showed.<br /><br />In this film, however, the team is at their absolute lowest. It's hard to imagine a comedy with less laughs and a more contrived plot. The film begins with Zasu in the jury and Thelma as a defense lawyer. As for Zasu, she's a completely annoying moron. NOT the lovable type moron (like Stan Laurel or Lou Costello), but just a totally annoying and grating person who is pushy and obnoxious. As for Thelma, as usual, she's the rather bland "straight man" and as such has little to do but react to Zasu's boorish behavior.<br /><br />The plot involves Thelma defending a client who is accused of selling exploding diet pills. Considering that the pills are highly dangerous, when the attorney asks Zasu to try swallowing one it just seems dumb. And, while they were called "pills", they were more like giant black blobs that were larger than golf balls. Swallowing them only seemed contrived and made no sense--even for a low-brow comedy. When they find she has swallowed the pill and it really is explosive, everyone panics and runs about like idiots until the film ends.<br /><br />As I said, I am not a fan of this team. However, even for those who want to like the film, there isn't one legitimate laugh in the entire short! When I talked over this review with my wife (who also saw the movie with me), she thought my score of 2 was overly generous!! | 0neg
| [
2.345703125,
-2.74609375
] |
Unless there's some huge ironic conspiracy going on, my jaw dropped when I read the positive reviews of this film; I cannot believe that this film was even released, it's so bad.<br /><br />I admit it is not my kind of movie, but I tried to watch it objectively anyway, you know, so bad it's funny, and was still offended at its sheer awfulness.<br /><br />The acting is atrocious, they can't have watched the rushes and I'm guessing there was one take per scene, it really is that terrible. It is the worst film I have seen in many a year, in fact, I wouldn't even call it a film, it's a tragedy. The gay black friend, whom no-one actually calls "gay", it's just implied because he's so crazy? Homophobic. This is not good, in fact, this is downright vomit inducing. The jokes die on their pathetic arses, the music is so bad it defies belief. The person who compiled the soundtrack essentially chose the most ear-mutilatingly bad songs they had ever heard and put them in this waste of film stock. Oh my good Christ I can't believe the 80's produced utter garbage like this, I grew up through them, and I cannot find one thing worth of note here, it must have been a dark time to be a cinema-goer.<br /><br />If you even contemplate watching this film go see a psychiatrist, he will then accordingly slap you, you sick, sick person. | 0neg
| [
2.64453125,
-2.99609375
] |
Starting on or around 1965 American movies took a turn for the shocking and the iconoclastic which was great for the times -- sort of the seeds that would pave the way for grittier, daring dramas. However, because the very decade that gave birth to these films was so ruled by its own convictions, most all of the films released at this period have dated. CACTUS FLOWER is no exception. Its very title suggests a "sunny" romantic comedy with occasional lapses into the risqué. This is not to say that it's a bad thing: quite the contrary, films about risqué subject matter have to begin somewhere and America being a culture rooted in specific traditions, themselves laced in deep hypocrisies, shocks itself for the sake of it when seeing an indirect reflection of the mores of the time. Meanwhile, European films address these same situations, walk off looking like a million bucks, and have a longer shelf-life because what we consider scandalous, they shrug off, say "Next," and move on. <br /><br />Toni Simmons (Goldie Hawn in her breakout role), a young, very sixties bright young thing, is carrying on with a much-older dentist named Julian Winston (Walter Matthau), who has commitment issues. He can'r marry her: he's already married. Toni decides instead of wilting away she actually wants to meet his wife and "set things straight." Into the picture comes his assistant, Stephanie Dickinson (a luminous Ingrid Bergman, returning to American cinema after a twenty-year absence), a woman closer to his age who acts as if she and he had the perfect marriage and household. There is a reason for this: she has harbored quiet emotions for Julian, emotions he is unaware of, even when he asks her to play his wife to ward Toni off from wanting to step their relationship further. And then he steps it up a notch when Toni's blissfully innocent actions veer the action off into the unexpected and he introduces Harvey Greenfield (Jack Weston) as Stephanie's "lover". By the way, Harvey is also an older gent who is having an affair with a much younger woman (Eve Bruce) whom he also lies to in one very funny scene.<br /><br />It's funny how the person whom we're looking for is the one who's always been there. What could have been a thankless role for Rick Lenz who plays Igor Sullivan, Toni's next door neighbor, turns into the man who not only sees the true beauty in fellow outcast Stephanie but the one who saves Toni at the start from killing herself. (Not the stuff of comedy, suicide. Then again, this is not your average comedy.) And needless to say is Ingrid Bergman's subtle, poignant portrayal of a woman who's somehow missed her chances at love, who's become prickly, who due to a lie said to another she becomes the real person she was always meant to be. I can't imagine anyone else in this quiet but deep role.<br /><br />Movies like these can be enjoyed at face-value and seen as escapist fun -- a product of its times -- or be viewed for the deep symbolism that, like its title, it carries deep within. It's a tricky film, the same way Hawn's and Bergman's performance are equally tricky because in seeming so simple, devoid of flourish and pose, neither come out and proclaim what they are about. Their acting becomes "not really acting" but playing real people, warts and all. CACTUS FLOWER is a story that never appears to take itself too seriously, but reveals itself to be deep and very human after all. | 1pos
| [
-2.0390625,
2.291015625
] |
This movie had the biggest advertising campaign any movie ever had in Russia. "Epic movie about Russian culture", "Great saga of Russian spirit", endless articles and interviews. For me this movie was the biggest disappointment. The main character played by Oleg Menshikov is a stupid immature boy ready to set up his comrades because of a woman who doesn't even look like a lady. What is there to admire? In the first part of the movie the story doesn't develop at all. People's festival scenes look like boasting about Russian audacity.<br /><br />I respect Mr. Mikhalkov for his previous works both as actor and director, but this movie just demonstrates his ambitions to be considered the "Tzar" of Russian cinema. | 0neg
| [
2.310546875,
-2.72265625
] |
Mention Bollywood to anyone with a slight familiarity with the genre and the images usually conjured up are of tacky, over the top musical numbers peopled with costuming that makes Vegas seem a bastion of conservatism. This perception is not helped by the whiff of condescension that permeates most movies that have approached Bollywood from an outsider's perspective. Willard Carroll's romantic comedy Marigold, however takes a different tack. It is not a nudge-nudge wink-wink look at those silly people and their clueless antics but a sincere appreciation of Bollywood for its vitality, its lack of irony and self-consciousness.<br /><br />It is obvious that the director has a tremendous affection and respect for Bollywood while at the same time is bemused by its kitschier aspects. And if you have a familiarity with Bollywood, you can appreciate what he does here in making a true hybrid of Bollywood and Hollywood movie conventions. From one of the opening shots, a flashback of the Salman character as a child by the sea, talking with his grandmother (played by Helen! - how many Salman movies start with this same premise?) to the flashback sequence that is incorporated into the movie that Marigold and Prem has been filming, anyone who has seen enough Bollywood movies will recognize these references. The story itself incorporates tried and true conventions from both Hollywood and Bollywood as well the fish out of water meets duty-to-one's-family-at the expense of personal fulfillment. The structure of the film follows the typical Bollywood plot line of the more comical set up of the first half giving way to a more dramatic resolution of the second. Yet ultimately the sensibility of the film is that of Hollywood, with its understated, wry humor and its story of a woman learning to believe in herself, to reach self-affirmation.<br /><br />You couldn't have a movie inspired by Bollywood if there weren't any musical numbers and this movie does not disappoint with seven of them. Unlike Bollywood, however, the songs do not pop out of nowhere and transport its characters to a European locale or Goan beach; they exist as musical numbers that are part of the film that is being made, reminiscent of how musical numbers were justified in Busby Berkeley movies as being part of a stage show. Or they come out of a situation where music already has a reason to be there a sexy nightclub scene where Prem teaches Marigold to dance or a beach scene where there are musicians (including a cameo from the playback singer Shaan) performing. All reflect the emotional state of the protagonists at that point in the movie. Often the music will take a conventional song from one genre and put a twist on it from the other. So in one of the highlights of the film where Marigold comes into her own, the song picturazation is fairly typical of its genre the female star singing and dancing among a line of women but in this case it's blond Ali Larter looking like a total natural Bollywood film star, emoting and lip synching to the Hindi lyrics with no subtitles.<br /><br />Also synonymous with Bollywood are sumptuous visuals and Marigold fulfills that aspect beautifully thanks to some of the top talent working in Bollywood today. The cinematographer is Anil Mehta who was also the cinematographer for Lagaan and Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam. The choreographer is Vaibhavi Merchant and production designer is Nitin Desai, both from Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam and Devdas. You can really see the influence of Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam on this film in fact, the illuminated floor in one of the numbers was originally from Dholi Taro Dhol, which coincidentally has an embedded Marigold pattern.<br /><br />As for the cast, Carroll obviously has a penchant for spotting acting talent as evidenced by Playing by Heart one of the first movies for both Angelina Jolie and Ryanne Phillippe. And in this film he again hits the mark with Ali Larter. One of the main reasons the film works is because of Larter. She makes a bitchy, unappealing character sympathetic and her subsequent transformation believable and she is smart, funny, and sexy because she is smart and funny. She and Salman share excellent chemistry and that is one of the film's biggest strengths.<br /><br />Salman Khan plays the role of Prince Charming here as filtered through his iconic role as Prem. This is old school Prem, however, so expect a quiet, subdued Salman - those used to him in his usual stripping avatar may be disappointed or relieved! It's a sincere and sensitive performance from him marred only by poor enunciation of his English lines.<br /><br />With a refreshing lack of cynicism and unabashed embrace of romantic love, the film is a love letter to Bollywood and Hollywood movies of yore. | 1pos
| [
-1.5224609375,
1.697265625
] |
Why has Ramón(Carlos Fuentes)brought his five college mates to a spooky abandoned school building which used to service the black sheep children of wealth? That answer might just lie in a diary in his possession supposedly written by his dying father. What they come in contact with is in fact a relived episode involving another group of six, with five of them presumably meeting graphic fates at the hands of a sadistic security guard(Paul Naschy)which occurred 20 some odd years ago. But, as they seek out a way to escape from this place, terror awaits them as that horrifying moment in time replays as the group run for their lives, often in states of panic as the killer begins to hunt and destroy them in a various bloody ways. Will Ramón and any of his pals survive this night of horror or becomes ghosts forever repeating the very same night like those before them?<br /><br />Stylish Spanish slasher has that professional gloss and potent, shocking violence to match. Some witty exchanges between the characters..layered in their dialogue are pop-culture references to American horror films which might annoy some viewers. A demented Naschy is really ferocious with the kiddies as he attacks them gleefully..quite a bloodthirsty maniac who carries out his violent acts with relish. I found the loud musical cues a bit annoying and the filmmakers often use flashbacks from previous events in the film as reminders to the audience. I don't think these tricks are necessarily needed, but felt the director wished to communicate in depth with the viewer hence the use of cues and flashbacks. A minor diversion for this film's plot keeps moving and the camera follows the pace of the characters and how they react to the chaotic situation presented to them. Your enjoyment of this film may ultimately come down to your acceptance of the paranormal supernatural aspects of the plot. Moments in time relived and a killer who continues his work seemingly from the grave. The twist does seem a bit jarring and abrupt, but this might(..or might not)work considering how the story plays out regarding why Ramón's father is shown amongst those ghosts re-enacting those grisly events two decades prior. I will say that this film probably wouldn't hold up if scrutinized in detail, but as a slasher flick, it's a breath of fresh air. | 1pos
| [
-1.359375,
1.505859375
] |
This is one of my all time favourite movies, if ur not into cars then forget it!! This movie features 1 of Aussies greatest muscle cars, the XYGTHO. Yeah so the acting not the greatest - it was never made to win an oscar. The car action will keep you comin back for more and more. There is a cool collection of muscle cars from the 70's and an Awesome '57 Chev - with a real cool cat drivin it! Also there is a really cool song sung by Terry Serio the main actor. The acting is pretty funny when taken lightly, but the tyre smokin and drag racing is the main focus in this movie. Big fast cars with pleantly of steel(NO PLASTIC CARS), and some cool street dragging. I recommend it only to people that are into cars and not someone looking for great acting. | 1pos
| [
-2.18359375,
2.4453125
] |
I guess those who have been in a one-sided relationship of some sort before will be able identify with the lead character Minako (Yuko Tanaka), a 50 year old woman who is still in the pink of good health, as demonstrated by her daily, grinding routine of waking up extremely early in the morning to prepare for her milk delivery work, where she has to lug bottles of Megmilk in a bag in a route around her town like clockwork, to exchange empty bottles for full ones, and to collect payment and issue receipt. And there's always be that one delivery stop that's right at the top, needing to scale a long flight of stairs in order to achieve customer satisfaction.<br /><br />And peculiar enough, that stop happened to be a stop delivering to a man with whom she has been in love with for almost all her teenage to adult life, and not having the product appreciated, but poured down the sink. Having gone to the same school, we see that they're not talking to each other, and in their daily life always seem so close physically, but yet so far away. There's no eye contact, save for cursory glances by chance, and little acknowledgement of each other's existence. We learn that they share a past that probably destroyed all notions of being together, where clear attraction between the two was hampered from developing further by the earlier generation.<br /><br />While I thought Minako was an interesting woman in herself, one who has kept her feelings suppressed for so long, one can only wonder what kind of damage it would do. If I read that the original Japanese title means "At some time the days you read books" and it's accurate, I felt the movie had a wonderful finale with that shot of her well stocked bookcase, likely alluding to the fact that she's not alone after all, and had probably fallen back on her crutch of sorts to deal with the pain of being alone, and back to a lifestyle which she had already been accustomed to for 50 years. Besides immersing herself in two jobs, she has those books which serve as a form of escapism, and occasionally pens little sweet nothings to song dedication shows on the radio.<br /><br />Yuko Tanaka did a commendable job as the emotionally strong woman resigned to her fate and her decision to love none other, her object of affection, Takanashi (Ittoku Kishibe) was a more interesting character who has more facets. Staying true to marriage vows, he spends significant amount of screen time looking after his sickly bedridden wife (played by Akiko Nishina), while juggling with his job of social welfare in the Children's Affairs department in City Hall. I felt that as a childless couple, the job provided him a means to care, not for his own, but for other people's children, the troubled ones who are neglected and left to fend for themselves. In a rare moment of rage, we see how he angrily chides such wayward parents who don't appreciate and wastes their children's lives away.<br /><br />The story by Kenji Aoki provides little quirks to make its characters appeal and successfully attempted to provide a lot more glimpses and dimension into them as well, such as how Takanashi is a hopeless Haiku poet despite being a member of the Haiku club, and supporting characters such as the aged Minagawa couple, where Masao (Koichi Ueda) lent some comical though sad moments as he slowly turned senile, while wife Toshiko (Misako Watanabe) narrates and brings us through this love story of a single woman at 50. Even Akiko Nishina's performance as the bedridden wife was nothing short of arresting, with her character's enlightened state of knowing her husband's past, and making unselfish, and painful decisions in her sickly state.<br /><br />It's what you can expect from a typical Japanese romantic movie, sans young, nubile leads as star-crossed lovers, but with all other elements in place such as romantic set ups, love songs and those quintessential restrained but affectionate behaviour. I thought the story was in danger of going down the beaten track when unrequited love gets consummated, but director Akira Ogata managed to steer clear of the usual melodramatic moments in such stories, though the story did call for some obvious plot development into the final act that you can predict, especially if you're already way past your Romance Movie 101.<br /><br />Not being your average lovey-dovey story, I thought The Milkwoman told a strong story with unrequited love as a central theme, and frankly a recommended romance movie (though told at a measured pace) if you're in the mood for some bittersweet loving, reminiscence, and seeking to live without regrets. | 1pos
| [
-1.2177734375,
1.3603515625
] |
Three American lads are backpacking their way around Europe, challenging each other to accumulate as many daredevil stunts and Hot babe lays as they can, But Andy seeks true love. He finds this during their bungee-jump attempt on the Eiffel Tower, when he comes across and breathtakingly saves a suicidal and heart-burstingly beautiful Julie Delpy. His attempts to find this girl and the secret he uncovers lead he and his friends into an fast paced adventure full of action, romance, gore, and inspired humor, without ever taking itself to seriously, or striving to be anything other than a wildly entertaining 90 minute ride. I have seen this film a number of times and found it a much more rewarding experience than the 'London' original, although both films are so different it is not fair to compare the two or even to consider this a sequel. | 1pos
| [
-2.0078125,
2.2109375
] |
If you never have read the book and never intend to read it in the future, go on and watch the movie (6/10). It is a nice fantasy movie with well done CGI, nice acting, a beautiful environment and an above-average fantasy story.<br /><br />If you have read the book like me about 10 times or more and really love it, don't expect too much (or better: don't expect anything at all). The story is totally different from the original book. This may explain that the movie is voted 1/10 from people around 40 or more (like me) and much better from people who most probably never read the book before and thus expect nothing.<br /><br />Most of the differences between movie and book are not really necessary and change the setting (in my opinion much to the worse): <br /><br />- The magic in the book works with rituals for classic magical effects. (Changing weather, creating illusions, transform into animals, ...) In the movie the magic is more like "jedi-school for the middle ages" (TM) (wooden sticks instead of lightsabers). That the devil is looking like emperor palpatine (after part III) doesn't make it really better.<br /><br />- The mill in the book is not totally cut off the world like in the movie. In the book the story is set near Dresden, which Krabat visits one time with his master and also he visits some nearby villages for festivities. (This part might have been changed to cut costs.) I also don't understand why in the movie the mill is located in the hills while the nearby graveyard is set in the high mountains.<br /><br />- The whole surrounding is the average run of the mill fantasy medieval style. Lots of mud everywhere, dirty faces, not an orderly kitchen, only very rough houses. The book never suggested such an environment.<br /><br />- In the book the master tries to make Krabat his successor but Krabat rejects. Krabat is somewhere between admiration, distance and silent rejection. In the movie Krabat rejects the master always openly like a stubborn schoolboy.<br /><br />- The movie is set in 1647 instead of around 1720. This makes it impossible for the master to tell some stories from his youth probably around 170x. OK, the stories are missing anyway in the movie.<br /><br />Also some explanations given in the book would have been helpful and would not cost so much minutes: <br /><br />- In the book all work done at day is effortless and work in the night is like normal work. This explanation is missing in the movie. Sometimes the boys are sweating and sometimes they are happy.<br /><br />- The book explains why only a few "Gesellen" try to confront the master: If the master dies by any mundane reasons, the "Gesellen" are free AND keep their magical powers. If the master dies at the confrontation, all will lose their power forever. | 0neg
| [
-1.1845703125,
1.2880859375
] |
Being a fan of the series I thought, how bad can the movie be? Well I got my answer. Some movies should never be made. Why call it a remake of the series when the only similarities are that there are three main characters. The Pete character in the series wasn't a whiney little baby as portrayed in the movie. The only good thing in this movie besides the music and that Clare Danes is pretty was that it was short. What's with that dance scene??? The only reason I didn't walk out of this film was because it was so bad it got funny. Maybe that was the plan! It's really bad when a cheap 60's TV show is better then a 90's 20 million dollar film. El Mariachi cost only $7000 and is a much better film. Don't even waste your money when it comes out on tape, it's not even worth renting. | 0neg
| [
2.171875,
-2.57421875
] |
With some wine, some friends and some good humor, I had a really good time watching this film. I particularly enjoyed the performance of Jilon Ghai (as "Randy"), who was such a kick in the pants! His scenes with Charity Rahmer ("Michelle") were wildly amusing. I wouldn't want him coming on to me, but it was great watching "Randy" try to score with "Michelle" and even better seeing the results! Of course, the girls in the film are lots of fun to watch too. AND, a friend of mine showed me the PLAYBOY issue that had Pilar Lastra as the Playmate of the Month. She's definitely a looker. All in all, this film totally served its purpose, which was to entertain us in a light and care-free way. | 1pos
| [
-2.103515625,
2.341796875
] |
A twist of fate puts a black man at the head of an old-school, white-bred advertising firm. And he intends to make a few changes...<br /><br />One very strange piece of cinema. You'll either love it or hate it. Either way, you've never seen anything like it. | 1pos
| [
-1.2763671875,
1.4931640625
] |
And now for another point of view: I didn't like it. I didn't finish it in fact. I know that "Unforgiven" is ranked by some as one of the greatest Westerns ever made. I know that it stars and was directed by Clint Eastwood, one of the icons of American cinema. I know that it won a bunch of Oscars. Still, I didn't like it. I don't like Westerns, and that's clearly a matter of taste, but I also don't admire Eastwood's acting. He is not and never has been a leading man. He is no Burt Lancaster, no Paul Newman, no John Wayne. In this film alone he is dwarfed by Richard Harris and Gene Hackman; they are both actors. No, Eastwood is a tall guy with a reedy voice who usually plays tough guys. Here he plays a retired tough guy. When I see him on screen, I see a man laboring at his acting. Then there's the anti-Western Western plot. It is too obviously intended to inject contemporary values -- a respect for the role of women, blacks, native Americans, and single parents; a disrespect for violence and drinking; the wholesomeness that comes with marriage, including interracial marriage, and small adorable children -- into a century in which those values weren't necessarily accepted, at least in these ways. By promoting those values, the movie comes across as mannered, if not preachy. Then there are the hoary movie stereotypes -- prostitutes with hearts of gold, the kid who can't shoot straight, the city slicker new to the wild West, the sage brush shimmering on a summer afternoon with a musical accompaniment in major chords. Finally there is the pacing of Eastwood's direction. I gave up after an hour. Eastwood was still riding north, chatting with Morgan Freeman and the kid who couldn't shoot straight, sixty minutes after the plot driven by the slashing of a prostitute was set in motion. It was way too slow. Somebody had to find these elements uncompelling. I am afraid it was me. | 0neg
| [
1.412109375,
-1.8525390625
] |
I'd first heard of this show in 2005, first online and then by viewing (and of course, buying)the typically gorgeous, BBC tie-in book. Then I got the DVD; it did not disappoint! I'd been hoping for years someone would make a science fiction program with the emphasis on the thrill of discovery rather than aliens, laser gun fights and other Hollywood 'boogieman' gimmicks! Thank you, Joe Ahearne (also for your Dr. Who work, and Ultraviolet--the mini-series; not the crap movie of the same name)! What compelled me to write this now (2 yrs. later) was that I'd just seen SUNSHINE last night. And what appeared to be in the same family as SPACE ODYSSEY turned into (about 2/3rds of the way in) Freddy Krueger meets 2010! That was when SPACE ODYSSEY really stood out as a positive example of how to do a REAL science fiction film; more science, less fiction! ODYSSEY (like SUNSHINE) also dealt with astronaut shortcomings (Zoe's failed EVA, Ivan's over exertions on Venus, the spats with mission control) and the sheer danger of exploring new planets with unfamiliar dangers (the fatal radiation spike on Mars). I would've easily paid to see this in a theater (I-Max, anyone?). And to top it all, not only were the space vistas jaw droppingly beautiful, but the characters were nicely drawn, too. I found their interplay more realistic than the wall-slamming histrionics of SUNSHINE's Icarus 2 crew (Icarus; dumb name for a solar mission--did anyone read the mythology of Icarus??). Sometimes it takes a not-so-good film to compel one to re-watch a better film. As an armchair astronaut, I'd trade my passage on Icarus for a seat on Pegasus any day. In all fairness, however, the visuals of SUNSHINE are quite stunning, though, and quite memorable. Which is why I was so strongly rooting for it to succeed as an honest-to-goodness sci-fi film. So, even though this review is almost a back-door review of SUNSHINE, I hope it's read for what it was meant to be; strong support for a BBC telefilm that succeeds where most big-budget, bloated cinematic spectacles fail. SPACE ODYSSEY (a.k.a. VOYAGE TO THE PLANETS here in the States) whets the appetite for solid, SCIENCE-fiction and delivers a banquet. I very much enjoyed the pseudo-documentary approach as well. As for the time lag/light-speed quibbles, they ARE addressed, if you pay attention. Where SUNSHINE melts, ODYSSEY keeps its cool. If you're considering going to the movies for another dose of SUNSHINE, stay in; go for a true SPACE ODYSSEY instead! | 1pos
| [
-1.69921875,
1.9072265625
] |
I have watched this movie at least ten times. I do not agree with the previous comments. This is a tongue in cheek movie and some of the acting is meant to be stilted. Men like Paul Cowley are few and far between, women like Linda, unfortunately, are a dime a dozen. The sad thing here is that although similiar relationships like this rarely lead to murder and frame ups, it is an all to familiar scenario. Boy worships girl, girl doesn't know he exists, they grow up, man sees woman he fantasized about down and out and rescues her. Bottom line, she never did love him-he came along at the right time and she used him. Thomas is excellent as the nerdy but adequate Paul. His portrayal is sensitive and touching. Madsen is perfect as the femme-fatale. What really moved me was the final scene. Paul says he eventually cried, but not for Linda, his wife, but for the unknown girl he had watched from a distance so many years ago..and longed for..and loved. And I loved the close-up of Thomas at the end. | 1pos
| [
-1.708984375,
1.923828125
] |
From the opening shot of the meteor falling towards Earth, you know you're in for something special.<br /><br />This is an ultra-low budget shot on video movie about a group of teens stranded on a lighthouse island with some monsters. The story is unremarkable and nothing you haven't seen a thousand times before. The acting isn't great but isn't completely horrible, however the special effects - of which there are a good deal - are laughable at best. In fact, if you can read this sentence, chances are better than 50% that you could do a more credible job creating the video explosion and compositing effects in this movie than the filmmakers.<br /><br />The movie's saving grace - if you're in the mood for a grade Z turkey of a film - is that there's always something happening and it never gets boring. And if you like making fun of bad movies with your friends, you might just find this worth a dollar rental.<br /><br />And I must say I appreciated the opening joke, "that is the dumbest name for an island I've ever heard." Probably the best moment in the movie. | 0neg
| [
1.7333984375,
-2.08984375
] |
I am not a movie maker but I know it is hard to tell a story and draw people into it in only seven short minutes. I think a good movie is one you don't want to end. Eric did a great job of developing the charater of the microbe and making him seem "human". Loved the music and the voice used for the microbe. I am looking forward to seeing what Eric has in store for us in future films. This is one movie I didn't want to see end. Great job. | 1pos
| [
-1.853515625,
2.044921875
] |
This is speculation. This movie could of inspired Paramount Pictures to film the movie The Core. Both movies have something in common nature.The only improvement for Inferno is a better cast. Inferno's cast is still good though. Excellent movie 8 out of 10. This is worth watching. This movie does have truth to it heat waves are real. Another piece of truth is heat related power outages. Where I live i have actually heard transformers blow. Unrest from heat is possible because people seeking to cool off may get rowdy. There is a considerable amount of team work in this movie. Again this a movie worth watching. The movie has a good cast. The movie has no slow spots. | 1pos
| [
-1.984375,
2.212890625
] |
This is a movie about the music that is currently being played in Istanbul. Istanbul was the center of the two Old World superpowers, the Byzantine Empire and the Ottoman Empire. Today, it is a megalopolis of almost 10 million. So it is to no ones surprise that a lot of music is being played in Istanbul, with a great variety of voices, styles, and influences from everywhere on the globe. It is Turkish music, of course, and I was fascinated by Turkish music ever since I bought my first record long time ago. The movie features different singers, instrumentalists and bands. Spoken comments from the musicians nicely illustrate the music being played, and the social context in modern Turkey. For my perspective, the most interesting comments were from Orhan Gencebay. Furthermore, the movies shows urban scenery mainly from Istanbul which is very pleasant to watch.<br /><br />"Crossing the Bridge" is listed as a documentary and it includes music from minorities, e.g. Kurds and Roma. Other important topics are omitted such as Turkish jazz music, or music of the Armenians and Greeks.<br /><br />This movie is strongly recommended for lovers of the music and culture of Turkey, the Balkans, the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Middle East. It may also be worthwhile for those with a keen interest in the global effects of musical styles such as Rock and Roll or Hip Hop. | 1pos
| [
-2.07421875,
2.31640625
] |
I recently got THE SEVEN-UPS on video and I must say it was a very enjoyable movie. Roy Scheider and Tony Lo Bianco are great as the cop and crook respectively and a young Richard Lynch is great as psycho henchman Moon. The late Bill Hickman is pretty good as his associate Bo and sets up a brilliant car chase sequence which will have you on the edge of your seats. The other three members of the Seven-Ups team are pretty bland but that's only to be expected.<br /><br />I'm glad that a lot of people on this site have supported this movie. I think it should be a film that should be released on DVD and not just forgotten. I certainly enjoyed every minute of it. The final scene between the two leads is excellent as the bad guy must face the consequences of his actions. THE SEVEN-UPS does not disappoint. | 1pos
| [
-2.40234375,
2.666015625
] |
<br /><br />I was fascinated to read the range of opinions on `Circus' from `awesome, breathtaking, brilliant' and most things between right down to `Golden Turkey candidate'. I find myself in the latter camp.<br /><br />The producers obviously thought that if they mixed plenty of over-the-top violence with barrages of four-letter expletives they'd have another `Lock, Stock and two Smoking Barrels' on their hands. A pity that they forgot to include wit, style, charm and flair. And it was certainly a mistake to feature a visit to Welles' classic `The Lady from Shanghai' thus serving to remind us how much better cinema can be.<br /><br />John Hannah gets his shirt off at every opportunity, a huge American drives around in a Mini Minor as `Circus' pathetically strains for cult status and even the beautiful Amanda Donohoe can't add any class to these proceedings.<br /><br />If you want to see a good Brit film try the sublime `Wonderland' | 0neg
| [
1.2919921875,
-1.673828125
] |
What is this!! its so bad. The animation looks so terrible , it looks like a ps1 type game. The actors are awful, they just cannot act to save their lives. I sat through all of this film an then at the end I was annoyed when I realised I had wasted 3 hours of my life. I've not heard of this film, did it ever actually come out in the cinema or did it go straight to DVD? A girl got shot?! What is up with that, it was just a stupid film. They totally copied 'The Day After Tomorrow'. Its got to be one of the worst films i have ever seen. I would definitely recommend to people to not waste their time with this. You could spend your time watching 'The Day After Tomorrow', its a lot better. Well thats what I think of the film. Actually why have I wasted my time writing about it, ah dam!! Its really annoying me, its wasted 3 hours and 10 minutes now. | 0neg
| [
2.498046875,
-2.8671875
] |
Not a good one. -Not at all.<br /><br />This installment revolves around a descent of the original murderer inside the Amityville home who must face his past to rid himself of the nightmarish terror of Amityville itself.<br /><br />It's basically nothing. My bet is that this film was made for some extra fast-cash to buy a boat or something... because this one's just ridiculous... Thankfully, it doesn't kill or ruin the series, but it just has no effect on the series at all.<br /><br />I'd have to say that just the fact that it is constantly referenced to the old, infamous house is probably the only thing that makes this one slightly more bearable than "The Amityville Curse". | 0neg
| [
2.271484375,
-2.66015625
] |
Honestly, I have to admit that I go and see certain stupid films based on the hype they have generated or are currently generating. This dumb Salman Khan & Govinda feature is one of those stupid films. Okay, by now we've all seen 'Hitch' starring Will Smith as a date doctor trying to help out odd people find true. Then why would we need to see Salman Khan re-enact this? Therein lies the $64,000 question. In case you were wondering, Govinda plays the oddball in search of the love of his life (an unreachable socialite) played by Katrina Kaif.<br /><br />Lara Dutta is along to play Sallu's Eva Mendes, and Sallu's real-life love Kaif pretty much plays her character like every role you've see her in thus far, no stretch no acting required. And for nearly three and a half hours we get tortured with spoofs of other Bollywood films and characters or better yet we get treated to low rate performances of past hit films. Rajpal Yadav co-stars. F | 0neg
| [
1.912109375,
-2.349609375
] |
The movie has taken a little flack for playing fast and loose with the facts. But it will put you close to being in a time and place that no longer exist by getting to the *feeling*.<br /><br />As Keith Richards remarks in Paul McCartney's movie about Holly, there's some Buddy Holly in almost all rock made since his day. The tragedy that took him is dealt with gently, and the rest of the movie recreates the joy of a great music career and a joyful body of music.<br /><br />Gary Busey does a remarkable, energetic portrayal of Holly, and his performances hint that he really gets into the music. As a long-time Holly fan and rocker, so do I. | 1pos
| [
-2.240234375,
2.48046875
] |
I don't know what Dick steel was talking about, but I found this film to be one of Japan's most thrilling epics to date. As for Armageddon or Deep Impact, or for that matter The day after tomorrow is pale in comparison. For what I know of films, most of the catastrophes in films are basically run of the mill asteroid flicks or one of which of Global Warming. This how ever ran a different course. A course of natural means where the earth's crust is beginning to erode to such a degree, that it will take another piece of land with it for the ride. What the scientific teams had to do was create a way to stop the erosion from going to far and Sinking Japan altogether. In most cases this would simply be called tectonic shifting on steroids. I found the characters rather appealing in every way, from the child who lost her mother only to face her own demise among unfamiliar friends. Or the rescue girl who does all the she can to save lives in the face of disaster. Or a man who thought he could change her mind not to be such a dare devil and go with him to safety, only to become the hero himself and save his homeland. And let's not forget, how the rest of the world just shucked them all back only to be forgotten, by having the world turning their backs on the Japanese citizens who cried for help. This was a great movie in all aspects. What Dick is trying to say is that this movie was not Hollywood made, that it was made in Japan, that it had characters which rival other actors around the world, that the effects are very gorgeous as he mentioned but it's all he was waiting for, and nothing else. He lacks the vision of what's important to everyone, and why this film had every element of feeling, of grandeur, and of humanity. I thought this film was top rate, and I have seen many disaster films to know that Japan Sinks was possibly one of the most original and well thought out projects I have witnessed. I really hope Shinji Higuchi will make another of such films. Oh and by the way, I am not Japanese, though in many ways I wish I was. I am Canadian, born and raised. And an avid movie buff in all aspects. Predjudicial visions are bitter and not worth the effort to be recognized as an opinion. Dick you should watch it with a more open heart and mind, don't just look for the eye candy which makes a films content, look for what's more important, and understand it. They may not be American, but the Japanese have cornered the market lately for some of the most breath taking and down right gritty film making to date. Which is why spending 25,000,000 is just what the Doctor ordered. You heard right, 25,000,000 to make this film. Now you tell me, was it worth it? or was it worth it because American actors weren't in it? | 1pos
| [
-1.5048828125,
1.7177734375
] |
From what I understand, Mr. Bava abandoned this project before completion...AND RIGHTFULLY SO!!! If I were him I definitely would have made sure that EVERY copy was burned and if anybody in the future ever asked me about this film...IT NEVER HAPPENED & IT NEVER EXISTED...end of story.<br /><br />Despite some great sets and good photography this is one horrible film...is it supposed to be scary? (not in the least) is it supposed to be funny?? (puh-leese) A total waste of time...and I really don't like to have to say that!! | 0neg
| [
2.533203125,
-2.876953125
] |
Elfriede Jelinek, not quite a household name yet, is a winner of the Nobel prize for literature. Her novel spawned a film that won second prize at Cannes and top prizes for the male and female leads. Am I a dinosaur in matters of aesthetic appreciation or has art become so debased that anything goes?<br /><br />'Gobble, gobble' is the favoured orthographic representation in Britain of the bubbling noise made by a turkey. In the film world a turkey is a monumental flop as measured by box office receipts or critical reception. 'Gobble, gobble' and The Piano Teacher are perfect partners.<br /><br />The embarrassing awfulness of this widely praised film cannot be overstated. It begins very badly, as if made to annoy the viewer. Credits interrupt inconsequential scenes for more than 11 minutes. We are introduced to Professor Erika Kohut, apparently the alter ego of the accoladed authoress, a stony professor of piano. She lives with her husky and domineering mum. Dad is an institutionalised madman who dies unseen during what passes for the action.<br /><br />Reviewing The Piano Teacher is difficult, beyond registering its unpleasantness. What we see in the film (and might read in the book, for all I know) is a tawdry, exploitative, nonsensical tale of an emotional pendulum that swings hither and thither without moving on.<br /><br />Erika, whose name is minimally used, is initially shown as a person with intense musical sensitivity but otherwise totally repressed. Not quite, because there's a handbags at two paces scene with her gravelly-voiced maman early on that ends with profuse apologies. If a reviewer has to (yawn) extract a leitmotif (why not use a pretentious word when a simpler one would do), Elrika's violently alternating moods would be it.<br /><br />A young hunk, Walter, studying to become a 'low voltage' engineer, whatever that is, and playing ice hockey in his few leisure moments, is also a talented pianist. He encounters Elrika at an old-fashioned recital in a luxury apartment in what may or may not be Paris. In the glib fashion of so much art, he immediately falls in love and starts to 'cherchez la femme'.<br /><br />Repressed Erika has a liking for hardcore pornography, shown briefly but graphically for a few seconds while she sniffs a tissue taken from the waste basket in the private booth where she watches.<br /><br />Walter performs a brilliant audition and is grudgingly accepted as a private student by Erika, whose teaching style is characterised by remoteness, hostility, discouragement and humiliation.<br /><br />He soon declares his love and before long pursues Erika into the Ladies where they engage in mild hanky panky and incomplete oral sex. Erika retains control over her lovesick swain. She promises to send him a letter of instruction for further pleasurable exchanges.<br /><br />In the meantime, chillingly jealous because of Walter's kindness to a nervous student who is literally having the shits before a rehearsal for some future concert, Erika fills the student's coat pocket with broken glass, causing severe lacerations to those delicate piano-playing hands.<br /><br />The next big scene (by-passing the genital self-mutilation, etc) has Walter turning up at the apartment Erika shares with her mother. Erika want to be humiliated, bound, slapped, etc. Sensible Walter is, for the moment, repulsed and marches off into the night.<br /><br />At this point there's still nearly an hour to go. The viewer can only fear the worst. Erika tracks down Walter to the skating rink where he does his ice hockey practice. They retire to a back room. Lusty Wally is unable to resist the hands tugging at his trousers. His 'baby gravy' is soon expelled with other stomach contents. Ho hum.<br /><br />Repulsed but hooked, perhaps desirous of revenge for the insult so recently barfed on the floor, Walter returns to Erika's apartment. Can you guess what happens now? It's not very deep or difficult. Yes, he becomes a brute while Erika becomes a victim. One moment he's locking maman in her room and slapping Erika, the next he's kicking her in the face, having sex with her and renewing his declarations of love. <br /><br />Am I being unfair in this summary? Watch the film if you want, but I'd advise you not to.<br /><br />Anyone can see eternity in a grain of sand if they're in the right mood. I could expatiate at the challenging depiction of human relationships conveyed by this film if I wanted. But I 'prefer not to', because this is a cheap and nasty film that appeals to base instincts and says nothing.<br /><br />I'm supposed to say that parentally repressed Erika longs for love, ineffectively seeks it in pornography, inappropriately rejects it when it literally appears, pink and throbbing, under her nose, belatedly realises that she doesn't like being hurt, blah, blah, blah.<br /><br />The world has, for reasons not explained, stunted her. She apparently makes a monster out of someone who appeared superficially loving - but surely we all know that any man is potentially a violent rapist, because that's his essential nature however much he tries to tell himself and the world otherwise.<br /><br />At the end, if you have the patience to be there, there's a small twist. Before going to the final scene, where she's due to perform as a substitute for the underwear-soiling student with the lacerated hands, Erika packs a knife in her handbag. For Walter?<br /><br />Yes, you're ahead of me. She stabs herself in a none life-threatening area and leaves. Roll credits.<br /><br />If this earned the second prize at Cannes, just how bad were the rest of the entries? | 0neg
| [
1.96875,
-2.380859375
] |
Frank Sinatra took this role, chewed it up with the rest of the scenery and - spat it out HIS way. TMWTGA is stagey, the ending is trite, some of the scenes need a little more cutting, but that's all. It's great entertainment from start to finish, and while you watch it you realise that Sinatra, that long-dead MOR crooner, had junkies, gangster card games and the whole US urban hustle thing in his blood - he didn't learn it from an acting coach. There are all sorts of directorial touches to keep you amused, and the (non-dated) soundtrack cooks all the way. The marathon card game beat Goodfellas, Sopranos, etc. by forty years! So it wasn't faithful to the book? What movie is? And I can't imagine it being remembered if Brando had been let loose on it; the cold turkey scenes would have been embarrassing, instead of edgy, convincing and moving with Sinatra. No-one else has mentioned the seedy, lazy, cynical cops - absolutely spot on! And Eleanor Parker would have driven *me* to smack. | 1pos
| [
0.1795654296875,
-0.343994140625
] |
The submarine used was NOT Varangian! 'It' was in fact two boats, P614 and P615, both built for Turkey by Vickers Armstorng at Barrow-in-Furness but kept hold of by the Royal Navy for the duration of the war. P615 was sunk but P614 was eventually delivered in 1945. <br /><br />The confusion no doubt arose because someone looked up P61 (as I did) and found Varangian! When in fact, the last digit of both P614 and P615 was in fact just painted out....<br /><br />There are some extremely realistic moments in the film. These Turkish boats were very similar to the S-class. As no S-class submarines survive, the shots of them (as P61) and of the depot ship "Forth" form part of an interesting record now, as well as an excellent film. | 1pos
| [
-2.15625,
2.453125
] |
Where the hell did VH1 find the scriptwriter for this movie??? Out of high school? This movie tries so hard to be sympathetic to Michael Jackson, but instead, turns him into a horrible, tacky caricature. All the lines are filled with clichés but surprisingly the acting wasn't bad. As usual, this is a bad movie with pretty good actors. The actor that plays Michael Jackson, jeez, I feel sorry for him! I think he did the best he could with the weak script. I didn't mind that Flex did not look like Michael Jackson, I thought he did the best he could, but later on when he had all that white make-up on, oh man, did he look yucky! The other actors that played Debbie Rowe, Priscilla Presley and Elizabeth Taylor were pretty good. Except that the actress that plays Liz Taylor looked too young and healthy to be playing Liz. The actress that plays Diana Ross didn't look at all like her and I couldn't figure out who this woman was until much later on in the movie.<br /><br />This movie does a disservice to everyone who is on the side of Michael Jackson, or against Michael Jackson. It doesn't do anything to change anyone's opinion. As a matter of fact, the only opinion anyone will have after watching this movie is, oh God, this movie really, really sucks! And where the hell is Michael Jackson's wonderful music and songs? There are none to be found in this movie. I love the soundtrack to this movie anyway and I'll probably purchase it if I could.<br /><br />On the lighter side though, this is a very funny, campy movie! It's a great time waster if you want to watch something light that won't trouble your brain too much. I'll probably watch it again, because it just is so entertainingly bad! | 0neg
| [
1.296875,
-1.6787109375
] |
The only problem with Married to the Mob is that it is not funny. It dresses up exactly like a romantic comedy, but almost nothing that happens is funny. But if you can look at it as a film where almost nothing funny happens, then you'll have a really good time. It's a glitzy mob film, too, as per the title. Extremely glitzy. But the director, Jonathan Demme, is one of the few prevailing cult directors who fully and completely embraced the 1980s in his work from that decade rather than understandably pretending it was still the 1970s.<br /><br />The opening credits combine 1980s animation, Italian-Americanism and mise-en-scene lathered on top of each other at once. From there, despite 1980sness, it feels about right. The lighting by Demme's frequent cinematographer Tak Fujimoto and jukebox soundtrack rife with widely varying pop and alternative jams are gaudy and that is indeed controlled and nuanced as part of the atmosphere. Demme is good at colorful instant characterizations in his visual and sometimes seemingly impetuous composition of a fun mix of styles, a plot that could've gone any which way, where a smooth FBI agent, played by a very bland Matthew Modine, trying to infiltrate a mafia family, sees a chance when a gun moll, played with come-hither allure by Michelle Pfeiffer, tries to leave the criminal lifestyle after her trigger-man husband, in just what you would hope for in an Alec Baldwin performance, is wacked.<br /><br />The way it goes works for awhile, because Demme seems to have a firm hand on the wheel. He knows the significance of showing us the very subjective and relatable life-at-home scenes with Pfeiffer, as well as her cares and longings as a morally conflicted mom, although her relationship with son Joey is taken a bit for granted. What mobster's son is listening to party-pooper mom when dad's boss, played with Dean Stockwell's trademark naturalness and by far the scene-stealing stand-out of the cast, is giving him such awesome gifts? On the whole though, Demme's lathered-on stylizations are easily viewed as a novel take on a fun crime thriller tale.<br /><br />Ultimately, though, we find we've been going the wrong way, because inevitably, Modine and Pfeiffer have to fall in love. That's not inherently bad, and every here and there it actually feels bearable, but as a romantic subplot, it is not handled interestingly, or well, hardly at all because it hopscotches across various sundry clichés, which fulfill the initial expectation of a cheesy 1980s date flick, and for that audience, I think it has just the right impact. But for someone who has found themselves genuinely interested in the story and the aesthetic approach, it is a let-down into state of tedium.<br /><br />So it's a decent movie with huge missteps at certain points, but as a date movie or a nostalgic piece for those who grew up in the '80s, perhaps saw a lot of date movies in the '80s, the entertainment value is not as likely to fluctuate, except for said deficit in true laughs. There maybe a few scoffs, and it's very broadly tongue-in-cheek, but I wouldn't leave the comedy aisle with the high hopes with which I'd have initially entered. Whatever the case anyway, there are additional joys in bit roles by great character actors who have by now begun to fade, like Nancy Travis, Joan Cusack and Oliver Platt. | 1pos
| [
-1.3310546875,
1.4814453125
] |
I've described this film as surprising... this is true in many respects. The subject material (black man wrongly accused), the characters (people you expect to be stereotypes often show uncharacteristic attitudes during the film), the production...<br /><br />All of these factors make for a refreshingly unusual film, especially for its time (1949). The only possible spoilers being the sometimes cheesy dialogue and occasional high moral stance.<br /><br />But, if you happen across it when you weren't planning to watch a film, you might find yourself like me - staying up into the middle of the night just to see what happens.<br /><br /> | 1pos
| [
-1.857421875,
2.1015625
] |
I could never imagine I would start loving movies like this. After seeing Yimou Zhang's 'Hero', I decided to check his other movies, perhaps looking for something similar. The second Yimou Zhang's movie I watched was 'No One Less' after which I realized what kind of cinema I'm now in. No wonder why I got 'Keep Cool' immediately. It is a simple, touching and brilliant piece of cinema, I pay my respect to the director.<br /><br />This movie shows that it's not the amount of money makes film good. It's all about what the director wants to show and how successful he is in doing this. The story is very simple, a typical extract of a typical daily life, moreover shown in a very simple way, the movements of camera also strengthen the impression and the feeling of the movie. I give a top rating to this film and impatiently waiting to see other Yimou Zhang's films. | 1pos
| [
-2.248046875,
2.466796875
] |
This is a decent movie. Although little bit short in time for me, it packs a lot of action, grit, commonsense and emotions in that time frame. Matt Dillon and the other main character does a great job in this movie. The emotions and intensity were convincing and tense throughout the movie. It is not typical fancy expensive Hollywood CGI action movie, but it was a very satisfying movie indeed for the price. My evening was great because of this movie. This movie is straight traditional action movie with great acting, story and directing. I would recommend this movie. The character development of the characters were good and makes you believe that were are actually seeing a real event taking place. Because this movie I believe was made with cheaper budget, the acting and quality were much higher. | 1pos
| [
-2.24609375,
2.494140625
] |
When I was 8 years old, and going through my Marx Brothers phase, my father read in the TV Guide that they were showing the Marx Brothers film, "The Big Store" late on Friday night, and set the VCR to tape it for me. When I woke up on Saturday -- due no doubt to a misprint in the TV guide -- my father and I discovered "The Story of Mankind" had been recorded instead.<br /><br />"The Big Store" was probably one of the least funny of all the Marx Brothers movies and nevertheless it stands as one of the century's finest works of cinema when compared with "The Story of Mankind." I can almost justify TV Guide's error, in that the Marx Brothers -- Groucho, Chico, and Harpo -- appear in both movies. Although in "The Story of Mankind," they are divided up into a series of unrelated scenes: Groucho plays Peter Minuit, Chico plays some guy talking to Christopher Columbus, and Harpo plays Isaac Newton????? Harpo's scene lasts about half a minute; Chico only has two or three lines; Groucho's scene is at least funny, but horribly racially insensitive by today's standards. The rest of the movie doesn't bear mentioning. They trotted out some of the finest actors of the day, and made them recite total garbage. What a disappointment.<br /><br />TV Guide, I sent you a nice letter, I'm still waiting for an apology.<br /><br />For the record: "The Big Store" has a wonderful bit of physical comedy with the Marx Brothers on roller skates, and a couple of songs by Virginia O'Brien. I was really looking forward to seeing it. | 0neg
| [
0.65185546875,
-0.8046875
] |
Robert Altman's "Quintet" is a dreary, gloomy, hard to follow thriller where you finally give up after awhile because it's so complicated.<br /><br />I remember seeing this at my local twin on opening weekend with a full house. By the time the picture ended it was less than a quarter full. Never have I witnessed such a mass exodus without there being an emergency to drive people out. That should tell you how bad it is. I believe it to be the worst film ever made involving such major talent in front of and behind the camera. | 0neg
| [
2.302734375,
-2.69921875
] |
When I was in 7th grade(back in 1977), I was asked to read the novel that this was based on as part of my English class studies. I can remember being very touched by it and excited when a TV version came out a year later.<br /><br />Kristy McNichol was a popular TV actress when this film was produced and was already playing a daughter in a dysfunctional family on the hit TV series "Family". It was clear that she had the range and ability to pull off this part. I recall her as being a bit "stiff" at times, but over all she does a good job. She carries the movie well.<br /><br />Esther Rolle is fantastic as the domestic who appears to be the only one in the household that seems to truly care for her. Barbara Barrie as the somewhat frightened and slightly neurotic mother is also good, as is young Robin Lively (who would eventually appear as the black widow Lana Milford in "Twin Peaks")as the sweet younger sister who seems to be the focus of the parent's affection. Bruce Davidson is also appropriately appealing as the German soldier of the title<br /><br />The best performance, however, belongs to Michael Constantine. It is truly powerful and merited more recognition than it got at the time. The bitterness and coldness he expresses makes the scenes in which he appears difficult to watch, but makes it much easier to understand the quiet desperation of the rejected daughter. Constantine gives everything the right intensity and seems to have a good understanding of the underlying psychological motivations.<br /><br />The film differs from the book only in some small ways. It is wonderful and inspiring to watch, and I hope that it gets released again on to video or DVD.<br /><br /> | 1pos
| [
-2.341796875,
2.58984375
] |
This show drives me crazy. It goes against everything a family should be, even if it is intended to be a comedy. The show is suppose to follow Dave and Vicky Gold (Michael Rapaport and Anita Barone) as they raise their three teenage children: Hilary, Larry, and Mike. A good premises for a comedy yes but it does not mean it will be a good show.<br /><br />I don't think I've ever heard cruder talk from parents to children and vice versa. The only talk that seems to be in the show is control of children by the parents and sex. I know that sexual intercourse is usually a subject talked about by teenagers often but it is brought up in nearly every episode with no point to it. The one episode I was just watching involved the parents giving their daughter, Hilary a car, not once do you think they are related in anyway by the way they talk to each other and how the parents talk about how Hilary is like "their slave."<br /><br />The show fails on the comedy level the most. I haven't laughed at this show once in the numerous times I have attempted to watch it, and I'm a person who gave such films as Animal House and Dumb and Dumber very high marks. Michael Rapaport is a very good actor and why he choose to ruin his career by making this piece of filth show is beyond me. <br /><br />Parents, make sure your children never and I mean never watch this. Teenagers, you'll probably get a laugh out of this just for the blatant sexual references but nothing comes out of it and afterwards you feel rather empty. <br /><br />1 1/2/ 5 Stars. | 0neg
| [
1.7421875,
-2.173828125
] |
My wife and I struggle to find movies like this that are clean and yet enjoyable for adults. If you can't find a cinema that is playing it, call your cinema and request it. Bravo, Five Sisters Productions for courage, tenacity and creative endeavor! | 1pos
| [
-2.02734375,
2.2734375
] |
probably the best horror movie in 5 years.. there's been lame remakes, attempts to make you scared (when all they make you do is walk out of the theater) and movies that just shouldn't have been made. but this one is worth it. the only reason i didn't give it a 10 is because Paris Hilton is in it (but her death scene makes up for it, believe me)..<br /><br />..so here they are.. the SPOILERS of all the death scenes in the movie..<br /><br />1. my favorite death scene ever - Paris Hilton's! after finding her boyfriend Blake laying on the ground with a knife sticking out of his neck, Paige starts to run. well, speed walk is more respectable. she finds this like garage with all these cars in it. then (one of) the killers cuts her ankle from below (this whole time shes holding a HUGE metal spike)so she drops it and runs and hides behind this car. the killer picks it up and as she looks through the window he throws it through the window and it shoots through her forehead.. I've NEVER BEEN SO EXCITED OR LAUGHED SO HARD IN MY LIFE.<br /><br />2. Paige's boyfriend Blake gets a knife stabbed into his neck and then the killer walks up to him (while hes on the ground) and steps on it pushing it farther into his throat.. then he dies.<br /><br />3. Elisha cuthbert (carly)(one of the hottest chicks EVER) doesn't die PHEW but she does get her lips super-glued together, punched in the face, and gets part of her index finger chopped off (yeah, i felt like heaving) 4. Carly's twin brother nick also survives, but not without getting his ass kicked and a stab wound to the leg.<br /><br />5. nicks best friend Dalton gets thrown down a flight of stairs, and then is decapitated. his body is dragged away and we see his eyes blink.. then he gets covered in wax.<br /><br />6. wade (Carly's boyfriend) gets his Achilles tendon snipped by a massive pair of scissors, and then is attacked by the same scissors. he doesn't die, but hes covered in wax, and on 2 occasions his skin is accidentally removed, revealing his nasty bloody flesh. YUMMY.<br /><br />..so there it is. Definitely WORTH YOUR MONEY. | 1pos
| [
-1.529296875,
1.78515625
] |
Fantastic documentary. A movie within a movie. I'm so glad Block forged on after his Mother's death. Makes one wonder about the time and money spent in therapy. What might have happened if she didn't have that outlet? Did the therapist help her or just foster a dependency that kept his bank account flush? The audience needs to understand that divorce was less of an option in those days. She was a housewife - went to therapy instead of going to college or job training. She seemed to feel trapped by the situation. I wonder if the therapist ever tried to get her to think about what she could have done to change her situation and free herself? Meanwhile, wife #2 was just the opposite. She was out there, working with his Dad; ended her bad marriage, supported herself and appears to be a very confident, giving person. Whatever the state of the marriage, the Blocks did something right in raising 3 kids who could look at their parents' story, be OK with it and share it with us and maybe lead us to start conversations with our parents and spouses. | 1pos
| [
-1.166015625,
1.296875
] |
If this is what's best in the Finnish cinema at the moment, I'd say those big tax euros spent at supporting "culture" have gone to waste here in a horrible way. Paha maa is the worst kind of example of trying to make a Finnish "European film" for big audiences. I'm sure they wanted it to be all state-of-the-art, smart and touching at the same time. The result is crap.<br /><br />To make it short: - The story is pretentious, naïve and not credible. The same goes for the characters. I can imagine them brainstorming about making a film where "everything would, like, turn to ***t and people would be hurt and feel, you know, really bad inside, because Finnish people are so notoriously depressed, too, and their self-esteem is so bad", which brings us to the fact that...<br /><br />- The film is loaded with clichés, mostly about "the Finnish mentality". The way the it deals with people's problems and their causes could be straight out of a regular women's magazine or a cheap bull-psychology-self-help book. ("We feel so bad inside!") I'm sure they watched some Kaurismäki, too, to find out what it is about his films that people like, misunderstood him completely, and came up with a boring, depressing story about people going through all kinds of s**t for no other artistic purpose than perhaps social pornography. It's a crying shame they threw in Tolstoy here. It's just a sign of trying to be smart. And of not being.<br /><br />- I think the worst fault, however, is the complete lack of vision and depth. The film is highly unoriginal. It is also frustrating to watch endless sulking and suffering without any real revelation brought to it. I can go through this kind of mind**ck if the film is funny or ends up being an elaborate joke, or better yet, something sublime like in e.g. von Trier's Breaking the Waves. There was none these in Paha maa. Actually though, I did start laughing at some point because the turn of events was again just too predictable, over-the-top and incredible.<br /><br />Who does this crap? And who likes it? I hope they're pretending. | 0neg
| [
2.283203125,
-2.6640625
] |
I saw this movie and thought it was a sleeper. Sometimes I can get into intellectual Romantic movies. This movie just did not move me. I felt like it was about one hour too long. Camille is portrayed as a very sympathetic sculptor, who loses just about everything. I thought the whole movie was just sad, and downcast. If you like tragedies, you MIGHT like this. I just thought it was too long, which meant it has many unnecessary scenes, which ultimately lead to about one hour of boredom. I would not recommend this movie. If you want to see a good romantic tragedy go watch Titanic. | 0neg
| [
2.1171875,
-2.572265625
] |
This movie travels farther on 8 gunshots, 2 kisses and 100 clichés than should be possible. Yet it still works. Brilliant.<br /><br />As I was driving home from the theater, I tried to figure out how it got away with movie staples like the pages of a novel manuscript blowing across a beach or the impossible series of fortuitous coincidences without the entire audience standing up and screaming, "I've seen that a million times before! And you've pushed beyond the edge of believability!" But the actors were so enchanting and the screen so filled with believable extras that I forgot to care. A friend who saw it with me said it transported him to Paris so perfectly that he was disappointed when we left the theater and realized we were still in Indiana.<br /><br />Overall, a romantic-comedy-thriller with subtlety, wit and elan. | 1pos
| [
-2.3984375,
2.6796875
] |
Jeff Morrow is Leslie Gaskell, Barbara Laurence is Vera Hunter, and John Emory is Hubbel Eliot. Along with some ancillary Air Force personnel and a comic geek, they are in charge of a super-secret underground laboratory on the West Coast. Morrow is thrilled when he discovers a meteor passing through the atmosphere but nonplussed when the meteor decides to take a dip in the Pacific Ocean and emerge as a fantastic machine on the Mexican coast.<br /><br />Nobody knows what this colossal, blocky structure is. Obviously it's some kind of carpentered artifact because it's all made up of right angles with a kind of bald sphere half visible on top.<br /><br />It turns out that the machine, dubbed Kronos, is from some far-away planet and has been sent here to rob the earth of energy. You see, here on earth, we have learned how to convert matter into energy, but on Kronos' planet they have figured out the other half of the equation -- how to convert energy into matter. And now they're running out of energy on the other planet. Are you taking notes on this? Good.<br /><br />Maybe you'll be able to fill me in on some of the scientific questions raised by Kronos' mission. For instance, if Kronos' builders can convert energy into matter and vice versa, why don't they just convert a little of their own spare matter into energy instead of sending elaborate machines to earth to extinguish LA's lights? But it's doubtful the writers could explain it either. Reversing the polarities of two antenna is described as an "anthropic conversion," which means a "towards-human change", which doesn't make sense. But it doesn't seem that any of the science makes sense for that matter. The diagram that Morrow draws on the board has the current going in the wrong direction, from positive to negative.<br /><br />There's a problem with Kronos' locomotion too. It marches along the coast, threatening "populated areas" (read Southern California), but it has no joints in its two or three legs. These stumps just thump slowly up and down, squashing some people. The film doesn't make much of these squashed people. They're shown as Mexican peasants, so maybe they don't count for too much. The USAF also drops a hydrogen bomb on Kronos -- while it's in Mexico, mind you. Nobody raises an eyebrow.<br /><br />Not much acting is called for and not much is given. Jeff Morrow has a distinct and resonant voice, great for radio or for TV voice overs. His face is less expressive. He has only one expression, no matter what the situation is -- a tight smile, as if he's having his picture taken at the Universal Studios Tour. Barbara Laurence had a fine, golden quality when she made "Street With No Name" a few years earlier. She was a slender seventeen-year-old as Richard Widmark's wife. Here, her grooming and demeanor reduce her to the level of B-movie actress, though she's still beautiful. It's always good to see Morris Ankrum in one of these movies. He's made so many, I get them mixed up.<br /><br />On the whole, the film comes across as flat, I'm afraid. (There are some nice shots of a B-47 in flight, though.) The sets reveal a low-budget enterprise. That's not necessarily bad in itself, but there's nothing to make up for the barren settings. Little tension in the script, no directorial display, and little effort put into the performances.<br /><br />You might get a kick out of it -- a relaxed high -- because this is distinctly unchallenging. It's just that there are so many better films of the genre out there. | 0neg
| [
1.884765625,
-2.27734375
] |
This review contains what might be a spoiler if you never read the book or saw the cover of the video box. So if you want to approach the movie not knowing anything about it, except that I like it a lot, stop here...<br /><br />The production values are not first rate, but the acting between the leads is, and they give the romance between them more life than Shute does in his novel (although I generally prefer the novel). My very faint objections to the film as opposed to the book is that the film dumbs-down some of the relationships with secondary characters, and between the lead characters in a scene toward the end of the film, to provide for some not at all realistic dramatic tension and as a general plot device. All this is handled much better in the book, with the result that I find the end of the book quite a bit more touching than the end of the movie. | 1pos
| [
-0.859375,
0.8955078125
] |
I've seen this movie a few times and with each viewing I still feel the excitement of embarking on a journey and the frustration of trying to overcome the barriers that impede the path. It's more than a mere desire of finding home; it's about the very basic human spirit of finding one's way in the world, of overcoming despair, of facing the character foibles that deter our goals. Underlying these human endeavors is the challenge to reconsider the origin of life. While this film is imbued with serious ideas, it has just enough comedic lines to leave the viewers hopeful. It is surprisingly funny. The execution of the story line is excellent! This is all packaged with visually engaging animation. A must see.<br /><br /> | 1pos
| [
-2.564453125,
2.8125
] |
I'm totally agree with GarryJohal from Singapore's comments about this film. Quotation: 'Yes non-Singaporean's can't see what's the big deal about this film. Some of the references in this film fly right over the head of foreign viewers and mostly Singaporeans are the ones who would actually 'get' it.' It's still not quite the truth and as a Malaysian-Chinese, i do 'get it' although i don't speak Hokkien because we do have the similar 'problems' in Malaysia too. I know that it's really hard to understand and to accept this as a REALITY but it is definitely NOT a 'no real story'. I was pleased to see this film outside Malaysia because it will and definitely be banned in Malaysia too. Which means either you get it in 'illegal copied VCDs or DVDs' or hope that someone to be kind enough to 'share' it in the internet. This is not an 'another violent teen drama.......' because it portrays the reality which exists in Singapore (and in Malaysia too) in an interesting way (sad+humour). I was just a little sad to know that this film got about 20 cuts in censorship. What a waste! | 1pos
| [
0.83544921875,
-1.173828125
] |
This "movie" and I say this lightly, is nothing but pure trash. I feel sorry for those people that actually wasted their money to go see this in theaters..I saw a screener of the movie from a friend and I've regretted it ever since. <br /><br />As a black woman, I am EXTREMELY embarrassed to have seen this. More so, I am extremely horrified that people of other races may have seen this as well and might believe it to be behavior of black people in general. It's full of stereotypes against all nationalities and genders, horribly vulgar coarse jokes and lame one-liners bleated out by somewhat well known African American comedians who should have known better after reading this script! I must also mention the numerous rap and hip hop singers/rappers that populate the movie like it was an overlong music video---they had absolutely no place in the movie. I guess they were the "Jiving & Singing Minstrels?" HORRIBLE. <br /><br />The "writers," producers and whoever had the stupidity to fund this "movie" should all be shot or locked in a room and forced to look at this crap nonstop for the rest of their lives. DO-NOT-WATCH-THIS- MOVIE!!! It's time wasted out of your life that you can never get back. | 0neg
| [
2.583984375,
-2.958984375
] |
Yes, this is one of the better done television movies and I wouldn't expect less from Joe Sargent. One thing for this reviewer is that I was also a great fan of The Carpenters, I got to sing all of their material in elementary school and middle school choir and I got to do much of the solo material of which Karen sang lead. I thought she was one of the most wonderful pop singers of the 70's - and being a child/teen singing these songs and learning music - the one thing I was looking forward to was meeting this woman. I never got to, she died three weeks before that was to happen. And yes, that did effect me for I knew nothing of anorexia - and could not understand completely what happened.<br /><br />When this TV movie got produced, I got quite an understanding. Maybe not everything in Karen and Richard's life is open to the television audience, but in opening the parts that were shown, I got to understand much from the music industry of that time. What upsets me is that I am writing "of that time" and seeing "now". No one has learned a darned thing, even though this was a very informative and heartfelt look into a family's problems in the music industry.<br /><br />These films aren't done for fun, they're done to open a door and show us something. Here was a wonderful woman who got caught up in the whole idea that her talent was based on weight. She was fine. Didn't know it. She got mixed messages about her weight from the brother she loved, the parents she loved and the music industry that cared more about her looks/weight than the talent within. With the onset of MTV, it got worse. With 'American Idol' it's like a puss festering in an English accent.<br /><br />A wonderful TV film, I am sure later someone may give it an HBO treatment but either way, many lessons to be learned and the absence of another wonderful talent. | 1pos
| [
-1.4384765625,
1.626953125
] |
This HTV series is beautiful. I strongly recommend watching the movie. It has got everything it should: remarkable script, strong characters, beautiful scenery and exceptional atmosphere. Add some ambient score from Clannad and you receive unforgettable picture. I love every adventure movie from HTV I saw: Return To Treasure Island, Smuggler, Adventurer, but Robin of Sherwood beats them all. I would like to thank the whole HTV production team and Richard Carpenter in particular for giving me plenty of adventures and excitement. I have got the DVD release in my little movie collection. I regret very much movies like these are not made anymore. | 1pos
| [
-2.32421875,
2.576171875
] |
This really is a great film. Full of love and humor, it compels the audience to really care about the characters and participate in their journey. Michael Parness managed to assemble a great cast of top players, a minor miracle for a first film. No doubt, they were moved to help him tell this beautiful story. David Krumoltz carries the film with his understated intensity and honesty. Natasha Lyonne is unpredictable, exasperating, and yet totally lovable as Grace. Also a great turn by Karen Black (great to see her on the screen again) as Grace's crazed but sympathetic mother. There is cutting wit throughout, allowing us the relief of laughter when faced with life's pain. The acting is impeccable, the editing tight, the direction inspired, and the music creates a fitting backdrop of mood. Given the present-day Hollywood Blockbuster craze, full of big budgets, big names, car crashes and special effects, 'Max & Grace' is a refreshing departure. Give yourself a treat and see this movie. | 1pos
| [
-2.6015625,
2.873046875
] |
Honestly, this movie is weak. Very weak. Only capital character can something. She's work like supercharger on bad engine...so, if you like red-haired Valkyries - see that. But better find picture of Brigitte as Sonja and put it on desktop. It will save of disappointments. Well, Arnold also do his deal...but it definitely not best his role. Other characters - bad is not that word. Sword fights? Monsters? Ridiculous. Plot is really shame. Why was necessary rape she? Especially, we don't see it.<br /><br />Anyway movie is weak. Though worse movies exist...Without main characters it would be just ******. And if somebody even discusses it, maybe... | 0neg
| [
2.458984375,
-2.845703125
] |
Stop me if you hard this one before, some cheerleaders, their coach and a couple guys are trapped within a cabin in the woods when an unseen killer kills them off one by one. Shame on me, after I totally wrote off Jim Wynorski after the horrid "Busty Cops" (it was a long time coming as his last truly good film was 1990's "Hard to Die"), I still for some reason got my hopes up for a supposed sequel to "Slumber Party Massacre". Sadly even my mediocre expectations were not met. This outing is not nearly as fun as even the three previous films in the franchise (and yes I'm including SPM 2, that should tell you something) Furthermore how can you have a slasher film with this little gore??? I mean Come on now!! <br /><br />My Grade: D <br /><br />Eye Candy: Ricky Ray gets topless; April Flowers and Charity Rahmer show boobs and buns in a shower scene (April gets nude again later in the film), and Tamie Sheffield gets topless and bares buns | 0neg
| [
1.599609375,
-2.001953125
] |
I go to blockbuster, pick out a random movie, got this, and yeah.<br /><br />This... was a good sexual porno.. the quality kind of sucked, and it kind of gave me a damn headache. To me, this movie was good for its sexual things, but not as much for the horror and suspense. It was ... magical...<br /><br />The suspense.. not as good as I would have expected. I wanted to be at the edge of my seat hoping to jump up in fear, but instead I lay down on the couch and didn't see much.<br /><br />The quality.. not really good at all. I mean, if you pay close attention, during when the people are on the COLD mountains, their barely wearing anything. It doesn't make much sense too.<br /><br />So if your looking for a crap, not really suspenseful, and a pretty much sexual movie, you've got this. | 0neg
| [
2.033203125,
-2.44921875
] |
The biggest tragedy surrounding this thoroughly delightful movie is its lack of U.S. distribution. I was fortunate enough to see this film at the Boston International Festival of Women's Cinema, and highly recommend it to anyone who gets a chance to see it. Terrific performances, and thoughtful script and great direction from the talented and funny Rose Troche all combine to make this film a winner! | 1pos
| [
-2.5859375,
2.8671875
] |
So first things first..<br /><br />Angels and Demons is a much better and very different film than the Da- Vinci code.<br /><br />Following the recent slew of comic book movies, remakes and questionable resurrections of aged franchises. it is refreshing to watch a very solid and entertaining film that is devoid of shaky cam filming techniques, lens flare, excessive GCI and over the top action sequences.<br /><br />In this respect Angels and Demons almost feels old fashioned.It offers a good and considered debate on the age old subject of religion Vs science, offers an insight in to the parallels between the grand houses of God in Rome (beautifully shot by the way) and the temple of modern science that is CERN's large hadron collider facility.<br /><br />Hanks is Hanks pretending to be the smart guy and he fits the role much better second time around than his wooden performance in Da-Vinci. good support is offered by a rock solid cast, with a particular highlight being Armin Mueller-Stahl's stoic Cardinal. but the films main saving grace is it's pace. for the entire running time I was totally engrossed in the story and the film never really gave me time to sit and pick apart its faults in logic.<br /><br />My only serious criticism is that some of the science depicted is at best debatable regards real world authenticity. But that is not the fault of the film makers, rather an observation of the old adage that you should never let the truth get in the way of a good story..<br /><br />Speaking of which the story is a cracker, mixing adventure and a race against time with a good sprinkling of intelligence and a nice twist or two along the way.<br /><br />overall I would highly recommend this to fans of either of the national treasure movies (which this clearly mimics but with a much more serious vibe) and fans of ripping adventure tales in general. | 1pos
| [
-2.208984375,
2.421875
] |
I got a chance to see this movie at an early screening in Brea and I have been crazy for it ever since. The film is based on Shakespeare's Twelfth Night which I have read and loved and seen on stage a few times so I certainly liked the references. But whether you like Shakespeare or not it won't matter - the movie stands on it's on. It is super funny, witty and charming. Amanda Bynes is hilarious and so was David Cross. Actually the whole cast is great - I just happen to be a huge David Cross fanatic. The cast is hot and the soundtrack kicks lots of cool bands and a few I hadn't heard before but I know they have a CD coming out so I will definitely buy it. Everyone in our audience laughed from start to finish - all age groups. !!!! | 1pos
| [
-2.392578125,
2.64453125
] |
Whenever this film gets a mention, usually the discussion begins and ends with the wonderful collection of cars and drag scenes, often overlooked are the at times eclectic characters that populate the film around the three central characters<br /><br />One character that stands out is Rebel played by the great veteran Australian actor Max Cullen. Rebel is a blind drag racer, who nearly runs down the hero and his group in the middle of the night because he is not using any headlights.<br /><br />In the back story we discover that Rebel master builder of street racing cars, and he and his wife seem locked in a time warp of the 1950's. Rebel goes on to play a small but pivotal role in teaching Mike, played by Terry Serio, the almost spiritual truth about street drag racing. It is not speed, reaction times that make a great racer. It is the one who feels the car best who will become the greatest<br /><br />This is best exemplified as Rebel explains to Mike after a test drive "You got all the agony, just missing the style"<br /><br />Graham Bond, is another well credited actor lending his talents as a crooked police officer looking to get in on some of the financial action being generated by the street racing. The confrontation between Bond and Fox played by Richard Moir adds tension to the story. Bond not only expects results but also Fox to drum up racing business<br /><br />For most of the movie Fox displays a real manipulative and evil side, yet in the climax he presents a sense of honor that turns the final few minutes into an extremely tense and memorable ending. It is almost as if the film is refocusing on its true intention, to show us the culture of street racing rather than the day to day activities of people<br /><br />One of the major complaints about the film is the script. Although it is nothing exciting, I believe the complete lack of any chemistry between Mikes girlfriend played by Deborah Conway and his mechanic played by Vangelis Mourikis has more to do with the problem. Any scene in which these two interact simply should have been cut<br /><br />Lastly in terms of the actors, one truly standout performance is delivered by Kristoffer Greaves, who plays a deaf and crippled member of Fox's inner circle. His back story is never explored, was he injured in a race, born that way, what is it that Fox sees value in to keep him around <br /><br />The reality of the film is simple, it is about street racing, and the culture behind it. When the cars are flying and action sequences are in motion it is the only time Director John Clark and his writer Barry Tomblin seem really comfortable with what they are doing.<br /><br />So if you are looking for an in depth exploration of human relationships, moments of life defining drama, then this film is not for you. If your pulse races at the thought of a blown 57 Chev or the iconic GTO Phase 3 blazing away on the streets of Sydney, then you wont find much better than this film | 1pos
| [
-1.6728515625,
1.8212890625
] |
"Quitting" may be as much about exiting a pre-ordained identity as about drug withdrawal. As a rural guy coming to Beijing, class and success must have struck this young artist face on as an appeal to separate from his roots and far surpass his peasant parents' acting success. Troubles arise, however, when the new man is too new, when it demands too big a departure from family, history, nature, and personal identity. The ensuing splits, and confusion between the imaginary and the real and the dissonance between the ordinary and the heroic are the stuff of a gut check on the one hand or a complete escape from self on the other. Hongshen slips into the latter and his long and lonely road back to self can be grim.<br /><br />But what an exceptionally convincing particularity, honesty, and sensuousness director Zhang Yang, and his actors, bring to this journey. No clichés, no stereotypes, no rigid gender roles, no requisite sex, romance or violence scenes, no requisite street language and, to boot, no assumed money to float character acts and whims. <br /><br />Hongshen Jia is in his mid-twenties. He's a talented actor, impressionable, vain, idealistic, and perhaps emotionally starved. The perfect recipe for his enablers. Soon he's the "cool" actor, idolized by youth. "He was hot in the early nineties." "He always had to be the most fashionable." He needs extremes, and goes in for heavy metal, adopts earrings and a scarf. His acting means the arts, friends--and roles, But not the kind that offer any personal challenge or input. And his self-criticism, dulled by the immediacy of success, opens the doors to an irrational self-doubt, self-hatred-- "I didn't know how to act" "I felt like a phony"--and to readily available drugs to counter them. He says "I had to get high to do what director wanted." So, his shallow identity as an actor becomes, via drugs, an escape from identity. <br /><br />Hongshen's disengagement from drugs and his false life is very gradual, intermittent--and doggedly his own. Solitude, space, meditative thinking, speech refusal, replace therapy. The abstract is out. And a great deal of his change occurs outdoors---not in idealized locations but mainly on green patches under the freeways, bridges, and high-rises of Beijing. The physicality is almost romantic, but is not. The bike rides to Ritan Park, the long spontaneous walks, the drenching sun and rain, grassy picnics, the sky patterns and kites that absorb his musing are very specific. He drifts in order to arrive, all the while picking up cues to a more real and realistic identity. "I started to open up" he says of this period in retrospect. And the contact seems to start with his lanky body which projects a kind of dancer's positioning (clumsy, graceful, humorous, telling) in a current circumstance. If mind or spirit is lacking, his legs can compel him to walk all night. <br /><br />Central to his comeback is the rejection of set roles. To punctuate his end to acting and his determination to a new identity, he smashes his videos and TV, and bangs his head till bloody against his "John Lennon Forever" poster. He has let down his iconic anti-establishment artist---but he's the only viable guide he knows. He even imagines himself as John's son (Yoko Ono), and adopts his "Mother Mary" as an intercessor in his "hour of darkness" and "time of trouble." (the wrenching, shaking pain in the park--hallucinatory and skitzoid ordeals) "Music is so much more real than acting" he says. And speaks of Lennon's influence as "showing me a new way." In the mental institute, the life-saving apples (resistance, nourishment) reflect Lennon's presence, as does Hongshen's need to re-hang his hero's poster in his redecorated room.<br /><br />If Lennon's influence is spiriting, Hongshen's father's influence is grounding. Although father and son are both actors and users (drugs and drink), it is Fegsen's differences from his son that underwrites his change. For the father is more secure in himself: he accepts that he's Chinese, a peasant in a line of peasants, a rural theater director. And he exercises control over both his habit and his emotions. It's this recognizable identity that drives Hongshen to treat him like a sounding board, sometimes with anger and rage, sometimes with humor (the blue jeans, Beatles) and passivity. In his most crazed, and violent exchange with his father in which he accuses him of being a liar, and a fake, he exposes more of himself than his father: "all the acts I acted before were bullshit... life is bullshit." And to Hongshen's emphatic "you are NOT my father," he softly replies, "why can't a peasant be your father?" <br /><br />Under these two teachers and with much additional help from his mother, sister, friends, inmates at the rehab inst., he makes some tangible connection to a real (not whole) self. As the long term drug effects recede, so does his old identity. Indebtedness replaces pride, trust distrust. Integrity banishes his black cloud. All his edges soften. "You are just a human being" he repeats endlessly after being released from the strap-down incurred for refusing medicine. Back home, lard peasant soap is fine with him now. And his once "rare and true friendships" begin again as is so evident in the back to poignant back-to-back fence scene with his musician buddy. Hongshen says of this movie: "it's a good chance to think about my life." And I might add, become a New Actor, one bound to art and life. Like Lennon, he has gained success without a loss of identity. | 1pos
| [
-2.01953125,
2.2265625
] |
We brought this film as a joke for a friend, and could of been our worst joke to play. The film is barely watchable, and the acting is dire. The worst child actor ever used and Hasslehoff giving a substandard performance. The plot is disgraceful and at points we was so bored we was wondering what the hell was going on. It tries to be gruesome in places but is just laughable.<br /><br />Just terrible | 0neg
| [
2.72265625,
-3.076171875
] |
There was a time when Michael Jackson was revered as the King of Pop. Then came a time when he attracted negative publicity as much as lemonade attracts wasps. Finally, it is now the time that we feel truly sorry for this man.<br /><br />This 'movie' is another reason to. I promised a rabid Michael Jackson fan to watch it with her. You know the type of fan -- someone who tells him- or herself to like everything the object of affection ever did. While watching this movie, which she had seen twice already, I realized how far this fandom goes. Probably far enough to rate this movie above a 1/10, as some people miraculously did.<br /><br />The movie attempts to be a parody of many other movies and series, most notably Cast Away, Lost and Jurassic Park. Unfortunately, it fails miserably at any level. The acting does not save the absolutely horrible story, the filming has the quality of a too-often played video tape, the special effects were better executed in Be Kind Rewind (for those who do not now this movie: with aluminum foil)... All this would be funny if the movie managed to be, well, funny. Unfortunately, it is not. It hurts to watch this.<br /><br />And then there is Michael Jacksons appearance in this garbage. He appears on a projection screen to deliver an important message, and manages to come across as mobile as Jabba the Hutt and as serious as a 4-year old. Just when I thought "who is the terrible person that lured this poor man into participating in this movie and yet again making a total fool of himself", I (finally) reached the ending credits and discovered that the movie was actually partially shot at Jackson's Neverland ranch. In other words: He. Likes. It.<br /><br />This movie, and Jackson's involvement in it, is truly disturbing. Do not watch it even for the "haha, a movie in the IMDb Bottom 100" effect. Or be warned. | 0neg
| [
2.021484375,
-2.421875
] |
Ah, classic comedy. At the point in the movie where brains get messed together, a two minute scene with Bruce Campbell beating himself up partially, reminds me of how simplistic movies and ideas can grab you and wrap you into a whole movie.<br /><br />For years and years, Bruce Campbell knows what kind of movies we want out of him. We want to see weird movies like Bubba Ho Tep. We want to see cameo roles in Sam Raimi movies, and we want to see 'Man with the Screaming Brain'. With the title alone, one knows that it's going to border that completely silly type of movie, like Army of Darkness, only with more silly and less monsters.<br /><br />The idea of the movie is simple. Bruce sees doctor. Doctor has new idea. Bruce gets bad things happen to him on way to see doctor. Coincidentally, it's the thing the doctor wanted to show him that saves him. Hilarity ensues.<br /><br />With the addition of Ted Raimi as a weird Russian guy, and journeyman Stacy Keach as Dr. Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov, it's funny, that does this movie. Complete funny. Never a point of scary.<br /><br />If you like the silly Bruce Campbell, you'll like this. Then again, why would you be watching this if you didn't like Bruce Campbell? | 1pos
| [
-0.8349609375,
0.91064453125
] |
I have a letter from Ms. Knight, who went to college with my older sister. In it, she tells of the hardships of making this film. She, herself, was pregnant--an interesting conjunction with the movie's plot--and the novice director was unsure, fairly green, and having great difficulties with all the decisions, logistics, etc. They were on the move all the time, and it was a very difficult shoot. <br /><br />The film, however, with a strong debut for James Caan, remains effective and affecting. It's a great showcase for the talent that Ms. Knight has demonstrated her entire career--on television, in movies and on the stage, where she won the Tony for "Kennedy's Children."<br /><br />This film has aged well. | 1pos
| [
-1.6591796875,
1.8916015625
] |
Captivating tale of backstabbing behind the curtains. The movie follows the plight of David Letterman and Jay Leno as they struggle for the elusive Tonight Show spot. Letterman led by his desire for the coveted time slot and Leno led by his agent and little-devil-on-the-shoulder, Helen Kushnick.<br /><br />Kathy Bates (Kushnick) is excellent in this movie, alienating herself from such top dogs as Bob Wright, Warren Littlefield, and Howard Stringer. Towards the end of the film you are so entranced with how she handles every situation from guest bookings to delayed taping, that you find yourself wanting more.<br /><br />John Michael Higgins (Letterman) plays his part to the tee. At times I found myself wondering if he was any relation to the real Letterman.<br /><br />I highly recommend this movie to anyone interested in entertainment or the world of corporate negotiations. | 1pos
| [
-2.3828125,
2.66015625
] |
"Midnight Clear" has a great premise. A group of over-educated, overly bright GI's are sent out by incompetent leaders on a vague mission to patrol around an isolated farm house on the eve of the Battle of the Bulge. The GI's encounter a group of battle-weary German regulars, and it becomes clear that they don't want to fight anymore.<br /><br />Therein lies the problem. It's really pretty simple. If the Germans want to surrender, they do so and that's the end of the movie. If the Germans want to fight, they do so and that's also the end of the movie. So instead of doing either the GI's and Germans play games with each other, even throwing snowballs at one point. Interesting for one or two scenes, but it soon becomes very annoying. After all, these are GERMANS. The enemy. Nothing in this film makes me think they should not be either taken prisoner or shot. The film does noting to make them more human. In fact, much of what the German characters did made ME want to shoot them, including one scene where the German officer refuses to deal with a Jew or to surrender to a mere enlisted man! Why should I care about such characters? Just shoot them and let's move on to the Battle of the Bulge. It's much more interesting, anyway.<br /><br />One good scene: The GI's are returning from a recon of the German position, where they had the Germans in their sights but did not fire. While walking across a clearing, they realize a group of Germans have their Mausers leveled at them. The Germans are about 100 yards away. The GIs then do something I've NEVER seen any GI's do in any Sillywood movie. They throw down their rifles and throw up their hands! Unusual as this may be in films, it is an entirely sensible reaction to having a rifle aimed at you from that distance. Though it seems far, in reality it's point-blank range for those rifles. I'll lay odds that someone working on this film was a cruffler! | 0neg
| [
1.8388671875,
-2.275390625
] |
So keira knightly is in it...So automatically we compare this film to attonement. Aside rom the fact that this film is also wartime and her appearance is uncanning, these films are totally different.<br /><br />The Actors work well, i think one good thing is there is no memorable person, they are a team.<br /><br />If you want a film where things happen, then id advise another as the story of this film is about human interaction and their physche's damaged by their experiences and how their lives are intertwined.<br /><br />This film have genuine interaction, perfect pause moments that make you hold your breath. No its not exciting, but it is gripping if you can empathise with these characters. At moments i wondered if this film may have been better as a theatrical play rather than a movie. We expect a lot from movies as everything is possible, and yet with theatre we allow for interaction and rely on belief.<br /><br />There are things wrong with it if your looking for a blockbuster, if you look for nothing and allow the film to take you in, move you, allow yourself to forget these stars, and not to judge them as actors but let them become people, you will truly ind yourself moved.<br /><br />GO ON!! give it a go! | 1pos
| [
-1.439453125,
1.5712890625
] |
If you're like me and you occasionally enjoy watching terrible movies (I guess it's kind of like slowing down at a car crash), you can't do better than this! The plot is inane, the special effects are hilarious and the acting is some of the worst you'll ever see! 4 THUMBS DOWN! WOOOHOOOOOOOO!!! Seriously, I have no idea how the director and the "actors" can sleep at night! It's painful, and yet hysterically funny, to watch and I highly recommend it for those who want to punish themselves for something. If you can watch this crap without wincing, you're a better man than I'll ever be! I wonder if the producer of this garbage had any idea what he was getting himself (and his money) into! | 0neg
| [
1.55859375,
-1.8955078125
] |
This was really the worst movie I've ever seen. Anyone who has seen it will know what I'm talking about. I saw it on Starz, so thank goodness I didn't waste my money. Please everyone, don't waste your time. I'm really suprised this wasn't straight to video. | 0neg
| [
2.44140625,
-2.794921875
] |
I had the misfortune of seeing this crapulous effort on television a few years ago. Suffice it to say Michael Gross phones in his performance, and Hasselhoff is the least convincing thief/psycho...EVER! If you have a couple of hours to kill, watch it and prepare to laugh. | 0neg
| [
1.7998046875,
-2.189453125
] |
First off, I am a huge fan of Tolkien, and as one I will base most of my critic on his books.<br /><br />The movie is a standard adventure movie, well made with nifty special effects, nice sound track and fine acting. Now if this movie was called something else than lord of the rings the reviews wouldn't be half this good as they are here.<br /><br />The problem of the movie is that it takes the basic story line from Tolkiens books but then it goes and "hollywoods" everything it can, numerous scenes from the book are eighter missing or changed quite a lot, the characters are changed from the book also, a thing that I think should be punishable ! What the movie lacks is deep insight of the characters in it, I know that it is almost impossible to make a good film out of a good book, and it didn't work here eighter, mostly the motivation of the characters is left hazy at best.<br /><br />As a adventure movie it would rate 7+ / 10 As a adaptation of Tolkien it rates 2 / 10<br /><br />I mean honestly, what on earth was Arwen doing at rivendell ford ? And as for the comments that this movie "is the best ever" I can only say that eighter you are very young, or you havent seen good movies...<br /><br />Peter Jackson should have called this movie an adventure movie based on the lord of the rings. | 0neg
| [
0.22265625,
-0.3115234375
] |
This film is about so many things. Most obvious is the hold that film can have over an audience and how capturing life on film can be a kind of magic. There is also the tense relationship between China and the West as many Chinese saw (probably rightly so) the "Barbarians" as trying to take over and pollute their way of life. Liu even seeks to preserve their way of life on film because he sees that it will one day disappear. Their is also Liu's internal conflict between the loyalties and traditions of China versus the self-determination philosophy of the West. All these themes are woven quite skillfully into a coherent and enjoyable whole by Hu. A very enjoyable film. | 1pos
| [
-2.6015625,
2.85546875
] |
This has got to be the most god-awful piece of cinematic crap I have ever watched. It makes Mel Brooks movies Oscar-worthy by comparison. Jim VanBebber needs to be publicly slapped for trying to pass this off as ANY form of entertainment.<br /><br />While some may say that this movie is true to the low budget genre of such classics as "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" or "Night of the Living Dead", the production value is not in question. It is VanBebber's ability to cast and present a plausible story line. The casting is deplorable. For the role of Charlie he must have picked the first actor he saw with a beard and long hair. Never mind that this actor's hair came halfway down his back, (Manson's never went much past his shoulders) this actor spoke in a dreadful monotone without so much as a fraction of the personality that Steve Railsback or even Jeremy Davies lent to their portrayals of Manson. The actor chosen to play "Tex" Watson had curly blond hair instead of straight dark hair, a fact that anyone who has shown even the most remote interest in the Manson case knows. He looks like a Minnesota farmer on "Little House on the Prairie" The actress playing Susan Atkins has a butt wider than Oprah's, While those familiar with the Family members know that "Clem" was considered somewhat retarded, the actor portraying him did so in such a campy, Chaplinesque way it was like watching an old Vaudevile act. Instead of Sharon Tate looking like a beautiful pregnant woman, the actress looked like bloated, alcoholic trailer trash. VanBebber speeds up the filming in some places for artistic effect yet this technique hasn't proved remotely useful since "The Munsters". The end credits list every known family member yet we are never introduced to the majority of them and those we are introduced to we aren't sure who they are sometimes.<br /><br />Facts are destroyed in this movie as well. "Lotsapoppa" did not die in real life, Steven Parent was shot four times, not twice, Abagail Folger did not have her throat slit, Where were Mary Brunner and Bruce Davis during the Himnan Murder? Patricia Krenwinkel never sported a "Dorothy Hamill" hair style.<br /><br />The most baffling aspect of this movie is what the modern day "freaks" had to do with this movie? Why was the girl wearing a rubber mask with a dildo attached? What was their problem with the journalist? What was the meaning or purpose of the final confrontation? Why were they included, period? The viewer never knows! <br /><br />Holy mackerel, I could go on and on but space prevents it. Don't try to eat popcorn during this garbage because your hand will be too busy scratching your head while you repeatedly say "What the f---?" | 0neg
| [
2.39453125,
-2.80078125
] |
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? | 1pos
| [
-1.29296875,
1.3896484375
] |
Another fabulous movie from Catherine Breillat, this time about the difficulties of shooting a sex scene in a movie. Using comedy a new genre for Breillat we get a backstage view of filmmaking but in documentary style. The character who plays the director in the movie is based on Breillat, the sex scene in question is taken from her earlier film A Ma Soeur' as is the main teenage actress. But the film, like all of Breillat's work, is not entertainment alone. It is peppered with philosophical observations on the nature of sexuality as well as demonstrating a devotion to purity' (as opposed to pornography) that is a cornerstone of Breillat's work and a devotion to real emotion. We see the director character harangue the young lead actress and actor to bring the best out in them, hypnotising them into the parts they need to play, bringing out part of themselves that the director can see in them but they cannot see in themselves until they achieve the heights of acting that she demands of them. She makes meaningful movies, not titillation, but she shows the work that is needed to produce this, and so gives us insights both into the (decidedly French) film making process and the psychology of male female sexuality. | 1pos
| [
-2.314453125,
2.576171875
] |
Goldie Hawn, in 1969, was best known for playing in television comedy shows - in particular ROWAN AND MARTIN'S LAUGH IN, where she was the giggly cookie young blond. She did make movies before CACTUS FLOWER, the most notable being a Walt Disney feature, THE ONE AND ONLY GENUINE, ORIGINAL FAMILY BAND. But CACTUS FLOWER picked up on her character from LAUGH-IN, and (due to a good script by I.A.L. Diamond - Billy Wilder's second partner - based on an Abe Burrows play) she was able to develop the television character so that a real performance was fleshed out. As a result Ms Hawn won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in 1969, and her career took off to such future hits as PRIVATE BENJAMIN and THE FIRST WIVES CLUB. Although other stars of LAUGH-IN did well on television (Henry Gibson has a recurring role as a judge on BOSTON LEGAL) only Goldie was able to have a career as a bonifide movie star.<br /><br />On LAUGH-IN Goldie's personality would show a naiveté that would be embarrassing. Occasionally she realized it, and would laugh loud to cover, but sometimes she just did not see her error (example: Goldie is introduced to the 1950s variety show host Gary Moore, and is told, "Goldie, this is Mr. Gary Moore." She shakes his hand and says (much to his confusion), "I've always wanted to meet Mr. John Gary Moore!"). But as Toni Simmons it is quite different. She is desperately in love with Dr. Julian Winston (Walter Matthau), a successful dentist, who can never marry her. Julian has told her that his wife (with whom he has had two sons and a daughter) will never give him a divorce. So at the start of the film Toni tries to commit suicide by the gas of her stove. But she is rescued by her neighbor, Igor Sullivan (Rick Lenz), a struggling dramatist, who breaks into her apartment and turns off the gas. <br /><br />Toni is resigned to live, but she has sent a suicide note to Julian. Igor tries to deliver a message to ignore the note but Julian's receptionist/nurse/assistant, Stephanie Dickinson (Ingrid Bergman) won't stop Julian's work schedule to pass him the phone when Igor calls. Instead Julian finds the letter and races to Toni's apartment, only to find her alive. When Igor supports her story that she tried to kill herself, Julian realizes the depth of her love, and decides he must marry such a woman. Unfortunately Toni has swallowed Julian's lies, and believes in his wife and children. You see, Julian has no wife and children. Since Toni is a firm believer that she can't marry a man who would lie to her Julian is stuck on a weakening tree branch.<br /><br />Julian comes to solve it by getting Stephanie to pretend she is Mrs. Winston. Stephanie is opposed to it at first, but on her own, on her first free Saturday, she confronts Toni at the record shop Toni is at. They talk, and Toni notices all the fine strengths of character and personality of Stephanie (and since Stephanie has her two nephews with her, Toni thinks they are Julian's kids). Toni tells Julian they have to see who is the man that Stephanie is supposedly going to marry. So the lie starts spiraling for Julian, Stephanie, and Toni. Soon a lover is given to Stephanie in the form of Julian's friend and freeloading patient Harvey Greenfield (Jack Weston). Greenfield is so sleazy (Stephanie loathes him) that Toni feels that he is unworthy of Stephanie.<br /><br />And so it goes, with one complication (most caused by the well-intentioned, misinformed Toni) following another until the conclusion. The script is full of first rate situations and one-liners (example: Julian to reward Stephanie for lying about their marriage, buys two record albums from Toni's store. He has given a mink stole to Toni, but she decides to send it to Stephanie with Julian's card. Stephanie is quite happy at getting the mink, but she does not say a word about the nature of the gift she got - when she profusely thanks Matthau, he says the thought she'd like Horowitz - meaning Vladomir Horowitz. But Stephanie thinks Horowitz is the name of the furrier!). <br /><br />Bergman must have enjoyed the filming, as several scenes shows that earthy radiance that was a trademark for her in the later 1940s films. But there was also the resemblance to her 1958 film comedy smash hit, INDISCREET. There Cary Grant lied to make sure the pair would concentrate on the romance of their affair without having to think about marriage. When Grant's lie is revealed to Bergman she decides on a lie of her own to convince Grant that she was making him a cuckold. Here, instead of being the passive lover believing Matthau is telling the truth, Bergman gingerly tries to get Matthau out of his mess by little white lies, only to find one leads to another to complicate everyone's lives. Bergman is seen as a nice woman who becomes part of the problem, despite trying to be part of the solution.<br /><br />All the leads perform well, in particular Bergman, all business thoroughness at first but gradually reclaiming her sexuality. Matthau is delightful as a man who finds a useful lie is an impediment that just can't be kicked aside. The supporting cast, especially Weston as the mooching and sexually slimy Harvey, and Vito Scotti as the U.N. ambassador who actually has the hots for Bergman. It was a clever comedy, and a really good way for Goldie Hawn's movie career to push forward. | 1pos
| [
-0.88330078125,
0.98388671875
] |
Being a D.B. Sweeney fan, I've been on the lookout for this movie for quite some time. I recently rented the video and found it very enjoyable. It had some really hilarious scenes. The dysfunctional lives of some of the characters was unsettling, but I think the movie also showed that it's possible to keep your life on track or get it back on track if it's been derailed. | 1pos
| [
-2.05078125,
2.28515625
] |
I saw this as a kid, before it had been yanked from the rotation, and even then it left a bad taste in my mouth. There were some competently worked out gags, but making slapstick villains out of American citizens who'd been interned in camps strictly due to their race was amazingly tasteless. <br /><br />Moe himself might have wanted this one buried. He was a liberal guy. In his autobiography he told of visiting a town in the segregated South, where he saw a black man get off the sidewalk to avoid passing too close. Moe stepped into the street to show it wasn't a problem, and the man then got back on the curb. Then off again. Finally, the man told Moe nervously that if Moe didn't stop trying to share the sidewalk with him, he might get them both lynched.<br /><br />Another thing: There are exploding ostrich eggs but no oxen in the film, so the title should actually be (if anyone cares) "The Yolk's on Me." | 0neg
| [
1.662109375,
-2.076171875
] |
I rarely give ratings less than 5, but in this instance I must weigh in. Elmore Leonard is a great writer with many wonderful, complex books, original characters, crisp dialogue, invigorating plot twists. Films based on his books go way back to Hombre (Paul Newman), Mr. Majestyk (Bronson), and Out of Sight (Clooney / Lopez) among others. Even when done so-so the films at least have some measure of story essence coming through. This one, .... it is simply not a worthy addition to the catalog.<br /><br />The acting is bad (I do not know why, because these are very capable people here) and the story is handled with stupidity. The characters are re-arranged, the chemistry is missing, the actors and actresses are mis-cast.<br /><br />Since Elmore Leonard is a really great story teller, I would hope that anyone who does not know his work would be dissuaded from reading his books because they saw this disappointing rendition of one of his stories.<br /><br />The story is a sequel to Get Shorty. If you have not seen that film, do not watch this. If you have seen Get Shorty, do not proceed to this.<br /><br />I saw Be Cool a few years back, and tonight have been re-visiting the vid. The first time must not have made such a negative impression because I had forgotten how dismal this sequel was.<br /><br />Fortunately, I think no less of those who appeared in this film for having done so. They probably expected something more. Get Shorty was original and great fun. Travolta I nearly always like, but he is so much better in Tarantino's Pulp Fiction and in the preceding Get Shorty. He was clearly unable to enjoy whatever was going on here.<br /><br />And I hear Freaky Deaky,another Elmore Leonard book, is in pre-production for 2008 release. Hopefully they can pull it off.<br /><br />Read the books. They are almost all great. | 0neg
| [
0.69873046875,
-0.9970703125
] |
Steve Smith has finally run a fairly weak series right into the ground with this movie. Poor actors thrashing a horrible script pretty much sums this one up. Two hours of your life you'll never get back! Go get a root canal instead - you'll enjoy it more. | 0neg
| [
1.7529296875,
-2.1171875
] |
Subsets and Splits