id
stringlengths 6
9
| status
stringclasses 2
values | _server_id
stringlengths 36
36
| text
stringlengths 32
6.39k
| label.responses
sequencelengths 1
1
⌀ | label.responses.users
sequencelengths 1
1
⌀ | label.responses.status
sequencelengths 1
1
⌀ | label.suggestion
stringclasses 1
value | label.suggestion.agent
null | label.suggestion.score
null |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
test_2300 | pending | 198cf7ae-e2e5-4b8b-a826-d6745acabcaf | Maybe this was *An Important Movie* and that's why people rank it so highly, but honestly it isn't very good. In hindsight it's easy to see that Chaplin (probably all of Hollywood) was incredibly naive about the magnitude of what was really going on in the ghettos, so you can't fault him TOO much for the disconnect that affects a modern viewer, but the disconnect remains.<br /><br />More disappointingly, the movie is just clunky; it's as if Chaplin had no idea that movies had progressed in sophistication since the silent era. The set pieces, those involving both the Jewish Barber and the Dictator, don't flow into each other; they just sit there like discrete lumps of storyline that progress in fits and starts, moving SOMEWHERE but never arriving at resolution. Some are funny, some less so.<br /><br />What charm the movie has is strictly in the person of Chaplin himself. His parodies of Hitler's speeches were the best part of the whole thing, and there's no denying that he had a physical grace that was delightful to watch. But virtually everything he surrounded himself with was ANNOYING. Hannah was TOO DAMN American. The Storm Troopers were TOO DAMN American.<br /><br />Oooh! Oooh! One more thing! I don't know what purpose was served by having Garbage be the source of evil behind the throne. It almost seems like the film is saying that, if it weren't for malign influences like Garbage, Hynckle wouldn't have been that bad a guy. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2301 | pending | 302d18a0-866c-470a-b0bc-b15699917f89 | *MILD SPOILERS*<br /><br />In this would-be satire, Chaplin set his sights on the evils of German fascism, playing the twin roles of Tomanian dictator Adenoid Hynkel and one of his subjects, an inadvertent World War I hero and Jewish barber. Through events inspired by both Adolf Hitler and the Marx Brothers, Hynkel negotiates contracts and declares war on neighbouring Osterlich whilst finding time for numerous, oddly flat set-pieces. The dictator's much-celebrated waltz with an inflatable globe is actually entirely heavyhanded, underwhelming and unfunny.<br /><br />Chaplin should certainly be commended for looking to lampoon Hitler and for speaking out strongly on celluloid - his much-maligned final speech is actually the bold, memorable highlight of the piece - but the film simply isn't sharp or funny enough to merit the praise frequently heaped upon it, nor to demand repeated viewings. The best gags are away from Hynkel's tiresome posturing and involve The Barber attempting to avoid a large spinning bomb (a sequence which steals from the gun tussle in The Gold Rush) and later, with a pot on his head, accidentally walking the plank off the roof of his shop.<br /><br />Compared to the director's silent classics, The Great Dictator is slow, wildly inconsistent and altogether somewhat unsatisfactory, whilst the barren spells between laughs are often long and difficult to endure. There is no doubt that Chaplin was a genius, but even geniuses make disappointing pictures and The Great Dictator certainly ranks as such. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2302 | pending | 498d6e31-36d0-46dc-a7fe-66a15358e75b | Chaplin was great a silent comedian, but many silent era stars fell when the public heard their voices in the first talkies. In my opinion, Chaplin's voice simply did not fit his silent characters that made him rich and famous. His career never recovered when sound came to film. Contrary to most of the reviews I have read, Chaplin's lifestyle and politics did not help his popularity with the average viewer who expected to be entertained by Chaplin the comedian, and not spend their entertainment dollar watching Chaplin's political commentary.<br /><br />Despite Chaplin's awards and knighthood, I would take exception to his "contributions" to humanity. The Great Dictator was made at the same time Stalin's brutal dictatorship was having it's show trials, and both Dictators signed the agreement that lead to invasion of Poland by both Dictators. WWII started in an attempt to save Poland. The Nazi's were defeated in 6 years, but Poland disappeared as a sovereign country. This happened during the time this film was made and the investigations of Hollywood by the Federal government. Had Chaplin included Joe Stalin in this satire,in addition to including the Italian dictator, perhaps he would have had less criticism about his politics by the politicians. The Soviet's mistreatment of Jews and dissidents exceeded the Nazi's in time and numbers.<br /><br />Judged simply as a film, many of the gags were too topical to be understood by younger viewers, who wouldn't know who Goebbels, Goring or Mussolini were. A classic piece of art must stand the test of time. Classic Greek Tragedy, the Mona Lisa and Beethoven's 9th are still enjoyed centuries after their creation because they are timeless. Films which rely on topical political commentary or currently popular social views usually do not outlast the generation in which they are made. But those that address issues that are common to all generations will probably live forever and receive a high rating from me.<br /><br />Chaplin, as the writer, director and lead actor must take the blame for what I judge as a dated and tiresome film.<br /><br />Chaplin's apologists have excused his decision to leave the country that made him rich and famous. If Chaplin found the US so offensive, why didn't he return to his native land. Great Britian fought the Nazi'with blood and money. What did Switzerland contribute in the fight against the European dictators? Switzerland is like a country club that picks and chooses its members based on race and class, and cares little about people who can't join the club. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2303 | pending | ce34f591-d039-456e-9707-73004336cf9c | Adenoid Hynkel, a lowly soldier in World War One, rises in subsequent years to become the ruthless dictator of Toumania. He creates an aggressive, antisemitic war machine and cultivates a little toothbrush moustache. Sound like anyone you know?<br /><br />From the safety of Hollywood, Chaplin uses this soapbox to exhort Europe to take up arms and defy Hitler and Mussolini. Given that the United States in 1940 had more than a year of neutrality ahead of it, and no strong desire to embroil itself in Europe's civil strife (remember, it was Hitler who declared war on the USA, not the other way round) it is surprising that Chaplin was allowed to distribute this immoderate polemic.<br /><br />The story involves on the one hand the the vulgar and repellant Hynkel and the reign of terror over which he ineptly presides, and life in the jewish ghetto where every single person is friendly, humane, brave, etc., etc, Chaplin is Hynkel, and he also plays The Jewish Barber, the little hero of the ghetto (The Tramp in all but name). Needless to say, Chaplin writes, directs, stars, composes the music and does the catering.<br /><br />In 1940 the full truth was not yet known about the Third Reich, and Chaplin can be forgiven for having something less than perfect historical foresight, but even by the standards of the day he gets Hitler badly wrong. A comedian and a sentimentalist, Chaplin tries to ridicule Hitler by making Hynkel silly and hapless. All this does is to humanise him. When Hynkel the not-very-warlike soldier fools around with the big gun and the upside-down aeroplane, he becomes endearing rather than despicable. As dictator, he inspects his subordinates' technical innovations which don't work (the parachute hat, the bulletproof uniform etc.) and these passages are meant to make us think that the real-life Nazis are incompetent and can be swept aside. In fact, Hynkel's regime is made cute and likeable by its bumbling bodgery.<br /><br />In truth, Chaplin's day had already passed when he made this ill-considered polemic. At heart, he was still a dinosaur of the silent screen (check out the humour, with gags like staggering up and down the street semi-conscious, or the pantomime of the coins in the puddings). The hero Schultz is meant to represent a yardstick of European decency against which Hynkel can be judged, but Schultz looks more like a character from operetta than a Nazi. Is it in any way believable that a Schultz figure (if such had existed) would say to the Fuehrer's face, "your cause is doomed to failure because it's built upon the stupid, ruthless persecution of innocent people"? And how does Schultz come to be in the cellars of the jewish ghetto? If he is the object of an exhaustive manhunt, why does he persist in wearing his Ruritanian uniform? Chaplin did not yet know the full horrors of Auschwitz-Birkenau or Treblinka, but the Nazi concentration camp which he offers us is hopelessly out of kilter with the grim spirit of the age. As usual, Chaplin thinks in terms of 'silent' comedy set-pieces, loosely pegged onto the narrative clothes line. There is the knockabout scrapping with the stormtroopers, shaving a man to the accompaniment of Brahms, and the globe ballet (watch for the segment filmed in reverse).<br /><br />Paulette Goddard is the unremittingly perfect Hannah. Just as the people of the ghetto are impossibly nice, and the jewish haven in Osterlich is ridiculously idyllic, so Hannah is quite literally too good to be true. Brave, defiant, resourceful, hardworking and (of course) beautiful, she is the canary of judaism in the ghetto cage. "Gee, ain't I cute?" she asks, after the Barber gives her a make-over. Too cute by far, is the answer. She doesn't come close to ringing true, because Chaplin has made her a caricature. The 'wouldn't it be wonderful?' speech which Chaplin puts into her mouth is typical of the author - too wordy, too emotionally cloying.<br /><br />Jack Oakie is great as Napaloni, the fascist dictator of Bacteria. He brings a whiff of much-needed comic brio to the proceedings, but the film's underlying weakness remains. If Napaloni is silly and ineffective, how can we fear him? And anyway, the stuttering stop-start of the back-projected train is a fine Chaplinesque example of a gag that is persisted with far beyond its comic worth.<br /><br />And where did the Jewish Barber acquire that immaculate Hynkel uniform? | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2304 | pending | 27c76578-843a-4f21-a5f0-cee680fdf091 | This show is not in my opinion, good,Then again I have not enjoyed any cartoon from Disney Channel. Except for "The Proud Family" because that so is about a normal female teen This show is very similar to the way I feel about Lilo and Stich the Series. It was a mistake turning the movie into a cartoon because the movie was excellent, the cartoon is terrible. Disney Channel was doing just fine before adding all these stupid cartoons such as Dave The Barbarian, Brandy and Mr. Whiskers, Lilo and Stich the Series, American Dragon Jake long,and where it all started: Kim Possible. The shows would have been better had they come to PlayHouse Disney! As for this particular show Kuzko will never get out of school just as Dave The Barbarian's Parents will never return home, and as Brandy And Mr. Whiskers will never get out of the jungle. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2305 | pending | dd52eeec-6d4b-4af1-90f9-b0eba043dcca | First when does this storyline take place? It has to take place after the first movie because Kuzco knows Pacha and Chicha has her third child but it can't take place after the second movie because doesn't Kronk get a girlfriend or wife or something? You never see her in the show.<br /><br />Also, why is Kuzco going to school? The whole plot of the show is that Kuzco is going to school so that he can be emperor. But wasn't he emperor before this? And who's emperor while he learning to be emperor? Shouldn't that be Yzma? Or was Yzma fired in this time line already? And if that true why is waiting for him to fail to become empresses? Plus, you know in the first movie he said he was trained from birth to be an emperor by private tutors. So he should kinda know what he's doing.<br /><br />Kronk. Why is Kronk a student? He's around 25 they stated that in the first movie. He's an adult going to high school. Does everyone think he's a moron? I really like Kronk but I think because of his age and because everyone know that he is working for Yzma he should have been a teacher. Being a Home Ec teacher would be right up his alley.<br /><br />Malina, is very unlikable. She suppose to be Kuzco's love interest/moral compass. But a lot of time, she comes off bossy and know it all. She commonly says thinks I like "I should be proud because I am pretty and smart". <br /><br />She has ESP when it comes to Kuzco and knows whenever he's in trouble, when he's cheating, or even when he sings the Hot Hot Hottie song in his head even though she does cheer leading, school newspaper and keeps straight A+ in all of her classes. <br /><br />She seems more interested in using her prettiness to get Kuzco to do the right thing and do well in school then dating him. In fact, she seems more motherly to Kuzco then a love interest.<br /><br />Yzma. As I bought up before Yzma is trying to get Kuzco to fail so she become empresses. Not sure how that's suppose to work with being fired and all. Yzma seems to be reliving the first movie in every episode. In almost every show that she appears in she turns Kuzco into an animal in hopes of having him fail a class. (There are only 3 times that I can think of that that didn't happen.) The jokes about Yzma being old aren't as clever in the show as they were the movie. And classic jokes about Yzma are used to death in the show (like the "Pull the level, Krunk!", roller-coaster, and the lab). <br /><br />Also, some other points that don't make sense in this series. The fact that whenever Kuzco is assigned something everyone acts like this assignment will make him pass or fail the class but he seems to pass every assignment given to him. So why does one assignment matter so much?<br /><br />Seriously, who is ruling the kingdom while this is going on? Do they have a consul or a steward? You never see anyone ruling the kingdom unless Kuzco has weaseled his powers back or Yzma is empresses.<br /><br />Why is Kuzco going to a normal peasant school? Shouldn't he learning about how to lead a country, what to do in case of war or something that will be useful to him in the future? I could see taking some normal classes on like farming (so he would know how to prepare the country for a famine or something like that) but knot tying? How is that helpful?<br /><br />Now I know that someone is going to say "But it not suppose to make sense; it's suppose to be funny." Then they should have more funny things in there. All the funny things about the show have been done already in the movie. Also, if they notice some of these huge plot holes why don't they poke fun at them like in the movie? (For example, when Yzma and Kronk get to the secret lab before Kuzco and Pacha and Yzma and Kronk can't explain how they got their first.)<br /><br />There are some good points, it is nice to see some of the characters from the first movie in the series like Bucky and monkey with the bug. Pacha and his family are still very good characters with a good down earth feel. I feel that this series would be amusing for younger children. <br /><br />In conclusion, the series is not as good as the movie that it based on but it may good for younger children. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2306 | pending | 00952390-6c94-4c48-b87c-00dfe425f582 | It pains me to see an awesome movie turn into some lame, repetitive and lazy series. It is filled with plot holes and the plot is confusing, in a BAD way. Whoever the prick writers were that decided to turn such a great movie into this garbage should have done some research, instead of filling it with one-liners and hollow new characters, and the classic jokes from the first movie OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Sure they get a little creative, but its like seeing the same episode with a small twist. Pretty much like listening to Creed, or Nickleback. Kuzco has to prevent himself from failing, Yzma has a complicated plan, but decides to go the easy way to save time and just use a potion, someone questions the monkey and the bug, Bucky appears in the background, Kuzco flirts with Malina, she disses him without sounding like a bitch, Yzma disguises herself as "Principal Amzy" and she calls Kronk, and he forgets that she is Yzma. I admit, this show does have it's moments. Another problem is the fact that Yzma looks younger and Pacha looks....weird. Also, no one can replace David Spade and John Goodman! Their the ones who made Kuzco and Pacha Kuzco and Pacha! Sorry, but i give this show two thumbs down. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2307 | pending | 1627b198-98a3-486e-a1e8-11659e2e1154 | Awful, awful, awful...<br /><br />I loved the original film. It was funny, charming, and had heart... this piece of junk has NONE of those things.<br /><br />Reused jokes from the original film, stupid plots, bad animation, different voices (with the exception of Kronk and Yzma) that sound NOTHING like the ones in the original (especially Pacha... *shudder*).<br /><br />The characters are off model, the animation is flat and boring, it's just a bad job all around.<br /><br />And why is Kuzco a jerk again? I thought he had reformed... but since when are these TV spin offs loyal to the original *rolls eyes*.<br /><br />I'm sorry, but there is nothing redeemable about this... at all.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2308 | pending | 5a6f1078-fd24-4869-8b0c-4845e102e8e7 | OK from the point of view of an American, who i assume do not know much about rugby this would be an amazing film for them.First of all its got heart, good morals the typical good coach trying to change the bad boy. HOWEVER to us where I come from rugby is the number one sport, it is a way of life it is a game played only by the bravest and the victorious are hailed like heroes as though Americans do for their baseball/basketball stars. Am not really sure if it was the cheap budget or the maybe the director or actors knew very little about rugby and being a rugby fan my whole life i can see than some of the actors didn't even knew rugby existed before acting in this movie. In summing up to me this movie was terrible. If you watch it and thought it was great please make time to go online and maybe Google "All Blacks" this is new Zealand's national team and the ones who made the haka famous. Believe me they will make the Highlands boys look like school girls. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2309 | pending | 86038894-002f-40e7-bb7a-6e168d44a222 | This movie is horrendous. The acting is cheesy and laughable. If you know anything at all about Rugby the match action is boring. In fact any episode of Power Rangers contains more realism than this movie. The 'action' consists of no more than one pass and a shot of guy landing over the try line or being tackled without the ball and hectic hand held shots of who knows what. It's impossible to tell. There is nothing of the excitement, skill and construction of try scoring that real Rugby contains. As for the haka, this is a bunch of yanks trying to imitate a tradition they know nothing about, much like the white rasta character that should have been left out of the film. Next time there's a Rugby movie made we can only hope that people who know Rugby make it. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2310 | pending | 58961657-2048-4e1c-93ac-61cbc07c3f6a | First off just let me say that I live in South Africa where rugby is our biggest sport by far, and our national side, the Springboks, have won the Rugby World Cup twice, so it's quite a big deal over here. I've played all my life and I'm shocked at the poor attention to detail in this movie! At first I thought it had the potential to be a great movie considering the cast of Neal McDonough, Nick Ferris, Gary Cole and Sean Astin for goodness sake, but it turned out to be a mockery of the sport. They basically mashed it together with your normal everyday American Football movie.<br /><br />My first problem is that this movie supposedly captures the values of rugby, but the discipline or should I say the total lack thereof during the games are contradictory to this. In the final it looks more like an NFL game with Penning being tackled of the ball numerous times, in front of the referee...that would've immediately led to a couple of red cards, because foul play like that would never go unpunished in by a referee, of that I can assure you! You'd also not be able to find a coach in world rugby who would have so little control over his team. Any coach would take a dump on a players head if he intentionally stiff arms an opposing player or double teams him like they did in the final...red card and certain suspension, full stop.<br /><br />Secondly, it's absurd that a coach would take a brand new player, who has played wing all of his life I gather, move him to hooker which is a highly specialized position and say that it's for the good of the TEAM?! What?! Hooker is a highly specialized position in the front row where you have to be able to scrum extremely well and preferably be able to throw the ball in at line-out time, which Penning NEVER does for some or other reason. By moving a wing to hooker without any extensive long term training it would firstly lead to your team's demise at scrum time & secondly the poor kid would probably break his neck! How is that good for the team I ask you? Finally, the overall high emotional pitch of the movie is way too much, because even though rugby is a great sport, and it builds great friendships & team spirit, it rarely gets that out of hand & corny. I've seen true-life football drama's with less emotion than this movie & it turned out great, but in this one Sean's (Penning) acting skills is dragged way too far and the movie attempts too force an emotional response out of the audience, which ends up being boring and hard to watch at times.<br /><br />Hollywood have made some great sports movies over the years, but next time they venture into a sport which has just recently picked up in the states, they should try and do their homework & maybe get some experts into the fray.<br /><br />DO IT RIGHT OR DON'T DO IT AT ALL! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2311 | pending | a4830378-ab5a-4899-b7ff-c8ba91d5f7ff | This movie, like so many others (Remember the Titans, Miracle), follows the basic sports-movie formula: There's a guy, he's a jerk. Jerk does bad. Jerk must play by someone else's rules. Someone else's rules change Jerk, Jerk becomes good. Insert tragedy (Death, drugs, riots, etc.). Tragedy effects Jerk, makes him totally change. Jerk must now play championship game. Lots of close-ups on the sweating players and the balls. Jerk wins. Quote from coach or news or something that explains title. Credits. Weren't you touched? These movies can now be used to sort out the morons of society. Anyone who pays to see this in theatres must be slapped. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2312 | pending | 53e3b371-73cb-4514-8a41-7bdcfee11717 | Coach Preachy or Straight Sappy. It's bad writing combined w/even worse acting. You can choose to drink the Gatorade of this after school special, but I didn't, not even on it's 20th Toby Robbins/Islander philosophy, motivational moment. It's too much posturing to be entertaining and not substantive enough to be informative. I have respect for the coach and the program this movie is inspired by, but the move itself is awful. As someone who has played rugby for nearly 20 years in the States I had hoped for a better rugby movie (even one that has something loosely to do with rugby). And I can tell you that the Haka performed by a bunch of Haoles and Islanders is not intimidating (much like when it's performed today by the All Blacks, seriously boys, everyone has seen it,it's time to put it away). If you want real intimidation, line up across from a bunch of South Africans (the real eye gouging convicts of rugby). This is a fake and badly done movie about being a genuine and good person. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2313 | pending | 632b4f21-ec86-4cd1-9253-ccfe6b9321e0 | This film is probably the worst movie I have watched in a very long time. The acting is so wooden a door could have done a better job. The plot is laughable and shallow and the actual "rugby" shown is a far cry from reality. I still don't get the "haka" as portrayed in this poor excuse for entertainment. I am not a Kiwi but I do know that the Haka can only be performed by someone of Maori origin and not by an all-American white boy.<br /><br />I am assuming that this was made for the American audience so the shallowness and "Disney end'" is excusable but there was hardly any attempt to point out the basic rules of the game apart from the prison side where the main character suddenly takes charge of an American Football game and gets everyone playing rugby instead. The only thing good about this film were the end credits. It would be less painful to spend ninety minutes inserting toothpicks into your eyeballs. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2314 | pending | e35b90dd-be68-4888-af2c-ddf17be760f7 | I'm from Australia and have watched with respect the extraordinary culture surrounding rugby union in New Zealand. I can totally appreciate the comments made by Kiwis in relation to this movie. It was a total insult to a race of people and their beloved sport.<br /><br />Whoever was involved in the making of this atrocious movie should be made to formally apologize to anyone who had the misfortune of watching it. Note: people do NOT kneel down and cry while slowly reciting the Hakka. What a pitiful scene this was.<br /><br />Are we supposed to feel some kind of sympathy for this idiot who nearly killed his girlfriend, who refused to listen to any advice from anyone with half a brain, then apparently saw the light? What a thoroughly dislikable character (with the visits to children's hospitals doing nothing to redeem his despicable personality).<br /><br />And why are people even making a movie about Americans playing rugby? They barely even feature in the sport on the world stage, not so much as to even warrant an attempt at making a movie about it (yes, Rugby's a 'world' sport, unlike gridiron and baseball)? | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2315 | pending | d2503ea4-877a-48bd-ad71-e9f524b3e37a | Awful film. Terrible acting, cheesy, totally unrealistic, embarrassing to anyone who has played the game. For a start that guy is not a hooker, he would be snapped in two. As for ''I score, that's my job'' well no it's not. For the the uneducated American audience it might come across as a good film. For me, well, that's a few hours of my life I'll never get back. I read through the reviews and came across one where the guy sounded like he knew what he was talking about. Then I read - <br /><br />''And while American rugby may never reach the level of talent that New Zealand or South Africa has, third in the world is also nothing to hang your head about''<br /><br />All I can say is, LMFAO! <br /><br />Keep playing your American football and baseball, leave the real sports to the big boys. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2316 | pending | db027630-3baf-4814-b1d5-9052a4bf9b12 | If the directors/producers/publicists wish to promote a film as "based on actual events" and make a film that is meant to inspire and have meaning then, for a start, to maintain any sort of creditability and integrity, you would want to keep a film as honest as you possibly can.<br /><br />A team wearing "all black" jumpers and doing the haka in America is just plain dumb. Any half intelligent person would know that the "All Blacks" are the National Rugby Union team of New Zealand and their jumpers are all black and the Haka is performed by them as a part of a traditional Maori dance.<br /><br />Having such stupidity in a movie, without explanation, merely reduces the credibility of the movie to zero and negates the message and inspiration that the movie is trying to achieve.<br /><br />The question is "Why"? Why would you do such a stupid thing and for what possible gain?<br /><br />I can only conclude that the writers or director or producers have seen it on TV before a international Rugby union match and thought "wow, that would be great in our movie, no one will know that it never happened, they're all too dumb to know about NZ nd the all blacks, this will be great."<br /><br />How would an Americian audience react to a movie made in NZ about Americain grid iron, with a team wearing an American Indian costumes and war paint, doing a native American Indian war dance, running round in circles shouting "oh woo woo woo, oh woo woo woo" react? They'd laugh their heads off!<br /><br />The people that made this movie and the industry that spawned it really should have their heads read. For some reason the industry thinks that they can "fool all the people all the time".<br /><br />It's just dumb! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2317 | pending | 2f0a6928-44cf-495b-95ae-36adeeaeaf97 | Where to begin? This film is very entertaining if you are new to the wonderful game of rugby, however, if you live outside the US and do follow the game, it is laughable. Various rugby traditions such as the "Haka" which is preformed by the New Zealand "All Blacks" and only by the All Blacks. The leader of the Haka is usually the member of the team with the best Maori pedigree. This is one of the most important conventions of the modern game and has been misused and represented by the writer. The film itself is quite well directed however it is the poor script and over-all execution that lets it down, heavily. Taking into account is is based on a real story, it does posses a great deal of clichés in the storyline. I would strongly suggest that any American interested in rugby watch this film then watch what rugby actually is on Youtube because the rugby portrayed in this film has been distorted and skewed so far from what it really is. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2318 | pending | 053a2c39-c268-415f-a85a-1b150e9963eb | If you`re not old enough to remember Yoram Globus and Menahem Golan here`s the rundown : They`re a couple of film producers and finaciers from Israel who set up the Cannon film company in the early 1980s . The only Israeli to get a worse press than these two was Menachim Begin . Begin probably deserved the bad press but Globus and Golan were a god send to film makers because no matter how bad your script was they`d happily fund your movie and would normally employ directors who couldn`t direct and actors who couldn`t act . In fact you often got the impression that people would just walk up to Yoram and Menahem ask them for some money and they`d oblige without seeing the film maker`s resume . If only producers nowadays were so trusting.<br /><br />THE YOUNG WARRIORS isn`t a Cannon film but Globus and Golan did finance it and it has their signature all over it . It`s badly directed , badly acted , badly edited but it`s the script that jumps out and attacks you with its awfulness . It starts with a bunch of high school jocks getting involved in all sorts of zany pranks , in fact the first 20 minutes of the movie plays out like a sex comedy and it`s something of a shock when THE YOUNG WARRIORS turns into a vigilante movie . But it`s not just any type of vigilante movie like EXTERMINATOR 2 or DEATH WISH 3 ( Notice a connection ? They`re both sequels and they`re both vigilante movies made by Cannon films ) , no siree this is a laughably bad vigilante movie about pretty boy high school jocks and their poodle going on a mission to wipe out scumbags . This film is proof that Globus and Golan were giving money to people regardless of their film making abilities and you have to worry about people who seem to spend their entire reserves on making movies set entirely around vigilantes | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2319 | pending | 25b7471d-b6b2-45c1-9689-e8fbe9fdad61 | There are good-bad movies and bad-bad-movies and enjoyably bad movies...this isn't one of them. This is a movie that doesn't realize just how bad it is.<br /><br />I saw this at a screening on November 14, 2006 at the New Beverly Theater in Los Angeles as part of the "Grindhouse Cinema" this theater puts on every month. Hopefully presenters Eric Caiden & co. will think twice before letting writer/director Lawrenece Foldes anywhere near them again. What a con man. The guy got up to speak before the film -- you would think he was Orson Welles talking about "Touch of Evil" or some other lost classic. Hardly. Nice of him to take up 20 minutes of the audiences' time with his incoherent rambling. <br /><br />"Young Warriors" has been described as a cross between "Animal House" and "Death Wish" but if you are expecting something along the lines of imitations like "Revenge of the Nerds" or "The Exterminator" you will be in for one sad disappointment. The script makes zero sense. The direction is so poor the actors looked embarrassed and what can you say when the best thing about the movie is watching a car blow up?<br /><br />Poor Richard "shaft" Roundtree. In this movie he plays another character with the first name of "John" but that's about the only similarity his character here has to the aforementioned classic. I hope this film allowed him to pay the rent for another month. Other actors who look like they wished they could be anywhere else included Ernest Borgnine and Linda Day George. <br /><br />This is a complete waste of time. Even the audience did not seem that into it (except for the one spazz-boy sitting in the back who yelled "whoa" every five minutes and his girlfriend who giggled with the fervor of a lobotomized talking Barbie every time he opened his mouth).<br /><br />For real films about vigilantes, I would suggest the following:<br /><br />Death Wish I, II, III, Exterminator I, Vigilante Force, Ms. 45, Rolling Thunder, the No-Mercy Man (the latter two being a pair of films presented at this theater a couple of years ago -- probably the same budget as "Young Warriors" but both were a million times better!) | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2320 | pending | f08dbbe4-aa8e-42f1-ae35-6d17680f42de | A party-hardy frat boy's sister is brutally murdered by a street gang, sending the young man into a sudden psychotic rampage. He and his buddies massacre half the city to bring his sister back to life.<br /><br />SAVAGE STREETS was released a year after this film, and was more entertaining. Linnea Quigley, who has a costarring role in this film as the sexy (and briefly nude) girlfriend of one of the guys, also starred in SAVAGE STREETS.<br /><br />This film is subpar, though it delivers enough escapist entertainment and gratuitous nudity to please its intended audience (me).<br /><br />MPAA: Rated R for strong violence, nudity, language, and some sexuality. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2321 | pending | 93387ad3-7bea-420f-990e-1f7f1d6da632 | It begins with a couple of disgusting sex-comedy gags, but soon it reveals its true colors: it wants to be a "Death Wish" clone. I say "wants to" because the script gets so increasingly laughable by the minute that it ends up looking like an absurdist "Death Wish" spoof! From a love scene in a room inexplicably filled with candles, to "heroes" who dress up as commandoes and wave their machine guns because they don't want to attract attention to themselves(!), to bad guys who drive around the city in a black van long after it has been recognized as their vehicle, this film has too many ludicrous points to fit in a list. The other major problem is that you can't tell most of the characters apart; of course, you know who Borgnine and Roundtree and even James Van Patten are, but all the other roles could have been played by different actors in various scenes, and you wouldn't know the difference. (*1/2) | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2322 | pending | 9e52fcaa-c861-4254-b17e-6b5baeb1c45b | So I give it one star for true quality, but I'd give it an eight and a half for sheer enjoyability. An incredibly strange hybrid of sex comedy and vigilante thriller, "Young Warriors" is just the sort of bad movie you usually hope to find when poking around the video fringe, yet so rarely do. It starts off with about half an hour of wacky hi-jinx, sex jokes, and juvenile shenanigans (including an olive in the martini joke that has to be seen not to be believed). Then the main character's younger sister gets gang raped by a bunch of swarthy bikers (an objectionable scene that keeps me from giving this a 10 for entertainment value - rape is not entertainment!), and the main character gets the rest of his sex crazed frat brothers to help him in a quest to clean up the city, find the responsible bikers, and kill anybody slightly criminal they run into along the way.<br /><br />It's hilarious, non-stop fun, apart from the very unpleasant rape scene, and is essential viewing to any serious bad movie fan. Trust me - I've put my time in on these things, and this is one of the best. Highlights include a wonderful visit to the library, a great flickering slo-mo shootout in a sleazy bar (with a shot of a guy blowing his own foot off that's pretty impressive), a couple of decent slumming actors (Richard Roundtree, Ernest Borgnine), a couple of semi-famous recognizable faces (Lynda Day George, scream queen Linnea Quigley), and a couple of relatives of famous people (Chuck Norris' brother Mike, Van Patten clan member James). It even has one of those great "What have we become?" type morality lesson endings, although the turning point comes when the vigilante fratboys gun down a couple of kids robbing a store with a toy gun. I've always wondered why that was the catalyst that got the hero thinking; after all, whether they were kids and not hardened criminals, and whether they had a real gun or not, they were in fact still robbing a store, so as far as I can tell, it was just another job well done for our vigilante frat boys, right? Wonderful stuff. Highly recommended, just don't blame me when you enjoy it despite yourself. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2323 | pending | 6e617dea-549b-493d-bb2c-55529c473f4b | The only thing good about this movie is the artwork on the promotion poster by H. R. Geiger. Anti-nuke protesters who all looked like punk rockers of the late 1970s, and somehow became non-violent, (except for their leader, "Splatter") occupy the cities. Fraternity boys descend on the punkers to do some violence on them and turn them into victims. Bad acting and bad plot then descends on the real victim, you, the viewer. I gave this a "2" because a few sexual scenes at least give it MST3K potential.<br /><br /> | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2324 | pending | b2a71527-bcf0-4486-8928-b2491157760c | I'm sure I saw FUTURE KILL for the same reason as most people: the awesome poster by HR Giger. And like everyone else, I was disappointed to find that the movie could not live up to the poster (Giger said that director Moore actually begged him to do it). When I first saw this, at the age of 14, I thought it was the worst movie ever made. I'd still think that if I hadn't seen certain movies on MST3K since then.<br /><br />The plot has a bunch of annoying college boys driving into the "mutant city" to kidnap a gang-leader for their fraternity. That's when they meet Splatter (Ed Neal), a mutant/cyborg/psycho who kills the gang leader and blames it on the frats as an excuse to hunt them down and seize power. The rest of the movie consists mostly of chases. A hand-full of frats try to battle their way out of mutant city (which I think is supposed to be LA, even though it was made in Texas). There's some pseudo-political stuff about the frat boys' society being pro-nuclear weapons and the mutant-society being anti-nuke. There's talk of how Splatter became a freak due to radiation. Most people develop cancer from radiation, but splatter just shoots spikes and slaughters girls. Yeah, that makes tons of sense. At one point, our heroes rescue a mutant girl from two pro-nuke police, and she shows them "how the other half lives." The other half, it turns out, are all punk kids who dance around to a bad 80s pop-band. So our little epic is both dumb and dated. That's really all there is to it. Frat boys running around in messed up buildings while guys who look like bikers try to kill them... Oh, and it's the future.<br /><br />I don't think you'll have any doubt about why Ron W. Moore never made another movie. This thing is a real stinker. If you like Giger, buy his books (they have the poster without the horrors of the movie), or just watch ALIEN again. FUTURE KILL is a waste of time that nobody needs.<br /><br />If this description makes the picture sound good, there's another crappy movie that does the same thing, only bigger and better: AFTER THE FALL OF NEW YORK. It's crap, but it blows FUTURE KILL off the screen. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2325 | pending | f7f07b64-cf10-4f5c-a4da-2935067597dc | I didn't really know what to expect from "Future-Kill", but I certainly hoped it would be a little better than what I got. I knew the rating was bad and the reviews were unfavorable, but the Subversive DVD-cover illustration looks beyond cool and I can't resist that. For a very long (too long, in fact) time, this film raised the impression of being an unofficial sequel to Porky's with lame, vulgar and offensive fraternity pranks. Five mega-dorks, one of them resembling an exact young clone of Jim Carrey, desperately want to become members of a frat house but their ultimate initiation might just be a tad bit far-fetched and dangerous. They are dropped in the city center with provocative marks painted on their faces, simultaneously with the outbreak of a violent gang war. It doesn't take too long before they are confronted with Splatter, a seemingly half-man and half-machine warrior, who leads a gang of which I never really figured out who or what they were. Were they a government experiment? Cyborgs? Terminator imitations from a distant future? Does anyone care? "Future-Kill" is a bizarre amateur flick with a scenario that leaps from one subject onto the other without any form of logical connection or narrative. The plot borrows vital elements from great cinematic cult classics like "The Warriors", "Escape from New York" and "The Terminator", but the end result is one gigantic Sci-Fi monstrosity. The costumes and special effects are quite pitiable and there's a truckload of cheap and gratuitous nudity. The acting is terrible, but I'm willing to blame the retarded dialogs instead of the cast members. One to avoid at all costs, in spite of really cool DVD-cover art. Resist it! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2326 | pending | 1e04d915-fa11-444a-90db-082c3e00421a | If you tried to make a bad film, you could not make one worst that this one. I can't imagine anyone paying good money to see trash like this in a theater. The thing that really gets you is being mesmerized in looking at the entire thing just for the amazement of seeing how lousy it could get. The redeeming facet of this film was seeing the words "The End" | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2327 | pending | 71d46646-5dba-4457-8a3e-07938f9dfce5 | During my struggle to stay awake during this borefest, I fought through my near-dosing off to discover some silly plot regarding fraternity schmucks, quite incredibly obnoxiously annoying, running into trouble with a psychotic , radioactively damaged half-human/half cyborg named Splatter who sends his soldiers after them for the murder of their prestigious, politically vocal leader(..for whom Splatter killed himself, setting them up to take the blame so he could become the leader). These face-painted freaks form a group who express their feelings anarchically, though non-violently, living on dilapidated streets abandoned by the "civilized world" voicing their concerns regarding nuclear disarmament. Anyways, most of the film has these five frat goons running throughout darkened streets with graffiti walls, as Splatter and his punks pursue them. Thankfully for these guys, they find a punk chic to assist them on their journey out of this rather ugly terrain with which they're unfamiliarized. This territory the frat guys are immersed is a veritable labyrinth of streets and alleys with the idea of an exit out most difficult particularly when crazies and Splatter's bunch occupy nearly every turn.<br /><br />Yeah, I was duped like others thanks to the HR Giger poster which is most excellent. If only he had been the designer of this dreck..this is not the case and we, the viewer, are left a film modeled after, of all movies it seems, Walter Hill's THE WARRIORS, except this film doesn't have the style or grit that film has. The film has a plethora of unfunny bits and lame confrontations between the frats and the punks with hand to hand combats often laughable. The setting is rather interesting, and there are some atmospheric uses of neon light, but it's not the environment that's the problem..it's the plot and characters within the environment that grow tiresome. The saddlebags under my eyes weighed heavier every minute this movie continued. Yes, Texas CHAINSAW stars Edwin Neal(..quite a funny voice-man, who has an entertaining interview on the DVD I rented for this flaming turd of a film)and Marilyn Burns have "key" roles as opposing members of their faction against the government resulting in the final conclusion within a building complex at the end. Neal's character Splatter uses these metal spikes which emerge from his metal arm to kill his victims. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2328 | pending | 5231af3a-0181-4449-8190-d436bab6a19b | Simply put, the only saving grace this movie has is settings, costumes and an OK punk concert. How H.R.Giger must feel about his cyborg picture on the cover of this movie, I wouldn't like to know. Right away, all I could do was make sardonic comments about the films protagonists, I was hoping that the "freaks" in this movie would execute them in gory fashion. I sense SPOILERS a comin'! I was wondering if this film in the spirit of the first 20 min. was intended to be as humorously half-baked as the rest of it? Examining all the obvious political outcries (Police trying to rape a "freak", the discussion of superficialities between the "freak" and the frat boy and the punk concert w/ the female vocalist) and the use of slow-motion in the fighting sequences (which screams "martial-arts coordinator") I just don't know. The character named "Steve" irked me since he tries to pick fights w/ people off the street (he shoulda been mugged and raped) and looks bad when he broke that guy's neck towards the end (want me to show you how to do it?) I must say this though, if they would've developed other characters better than they did "Splatter", this might have gone somewhere. If there was a 0 to give this movie, it would've got it, but alas it's a 1. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2329 | pending | 0c0520d1-a03c-42be-b620-c12e9da3ec76 | This film is worse than Cat People, which I saw during the same week. It has all the 80's style. MTV punk rockers, the real ones who are anti social, not todays PC commercial type, frat boys, and a bad guy called Splater. I really like Splater, and the film does that blue lighting 80's feel, but the rest of it looks like low budget Canadian schlop. I have seen so much of this while living in this great country, and realize these type of movies were made because of Tax breaks. Avoid at all costs. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2330 | pending | f2317237-c625-428c-8568-92a6ac15e881 | This movie has the distinction of being the worst movie I have ever seen, and the only film I have ever given a 1 out of 10 on imdb as of yet. I was fooled into renting it because of the cool H.R. Giger cover art on the box. This cover art is the only thing the least bit good about this steaming pile of...<br /><br />It was about frat boys fighting "freaks" in a strange but not the least bit interesting post apocalyptic world where the cities are in ruins/chaos, but apparently the suburbs are still a safe and wonderful place for young men to haze other men into braindead frat organizations. The most uninspiring performances by boring characters, not so special effects, dreary, un-original scenery and just generally extremely poor quality in all production aspects make this lemon the all time loser on my list.<br /><br />FINAL RATING: 1/10 I wish I could give it a zero.<br /><br />Noob Aalox | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2331 | pending | e0095d76-fb8d-41d0-a332-d3b32404359d | Very curious that Nichols and Hanks would team up for this, obviously they believe it. Strange because it should carry the title "Charlie Wilson's War the Lie.<br /><br />How could the time frame leave out the real history that while ridding Afganistan of the Russians the CIA was providing support for the Taliban, and today's World of Terrorism. In 1990, Bin Laden went home to Saudi Arabia as a hero of jihad, who along with his Arab legion, "had brought down the mighty superpower" of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. <br /><br />To avoid any connection to Osama Bin Laden is to say again, Hollywood cares little for Historical Truth. Charlie Wilson, a patriot, hardly, more like a congressman gone amok. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2332 | pending | 58028fbd-cc43-4f95-a24f-7f2f1c298dd3 | Russians never dropped children's toys filled with explosives over Afghanistan, that never happened!!! Who did invention of that?? Hollywood portrays Russian army as horrible, dreadful troops of evil! That is disgusting!! United States President Jimmy Carter had accepted the view that "Soviet aggression" could not be viewed as an isolated event of limited geographical importance but had to be contested as a potential threat to the Persian Gulf region. The uncertain scope of the final objective of Moscow in its sudden southward plunge made the American stake in an independent Pakistan all the more important. A great deal of damage was done to the civilian children population by land mines. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2333 | pending | eec2f8f6-51b1-4e96-8708-2e9e2197a889 | SPOILER - This film gives away plot points and discusses the ending. I hated this film - mostly for political reasons, but also for moral and aesthetic reasons. Politically, this film glorified war and military technology - blowing things up real good. We are led to cheer as the music swells and the Afghans use our weapons to blow the Ruskies to bits. And no U.S. soldiers put their lives on the line - so it's a fun war. Aesthetically, there isn't a touch of real human emotion in the film, just smug, privileged people being sarcastic, feeling superior, and doing whatever they want regardless of the consequences. And speaking of consequences, the film only makes a few small hits at what the arming of the Afghans actually led to. I had read an earlier draft of this script, and it ended on 9/11 - with Charlie Wilson realizing that things had gone horribly wrong. But that wouldn't leave the audience feeling good. This is a feel good movie about killing Ruskies. And it made me sick. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2334 | pending | 0085a01c-6c5e-40f0-b619-d06a78869665 | When the American movie industry tries to critically look at their own government they make damn sure it looks good even when it's bad.<br /><br />The film does 1 thing right it demonstrates perfectly what is wrong with the American politics. The motto seems to be to f**k with whoever it takes to get things done!!! Mix an American Congressmen, a CIA agent, a Jew and an Arab... just to f**k the Ruskies. Thanks to US for giving us Osama Bin Laden.<br /><br />The disappointment of the film comes in the face of muddling up the issues: using imagery of Afghan children with no arms and the stories of soviet atrocities and then making a blatant attempt to suggest a link between those and the reasoning behind the American help. Every sensible person knows why the $1,000,000,000 was raised... not the dying Afghani children that's for sure.<br /><br />As usual the serious issues are covered into facade of bullshit dialogue. "Here is to you, you M***r F*****s" Hoffmam chants at the end, all that's missing is the American flag in the background and the stupid military solutes. The films can not help but leave the aftertaste of the feeling of American pride and glee on how we (the Americans) have saved the world... once again. Not even the last 5 minutes of the film can save it, where an attempt is being made to stop praising yourself and wake up to the fact that its just another American F**k up.<br /><br />The acting and editing was good though. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2335 | pending | 232adb50-25e1-4be3-bb4a-74d0f5d6f726 | The filmmakers neglected to connect the dots--that is, the sequence of events and choices that led from Charlie Wilson and the anti-Soviet mujaheddin to Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden and eventually to 9/11. The filmmakers of course neglect to tell us the back-story--why were the Soviets in Afghanistan?--but that omission pales in comparison to their failure to reveal that support for Islamicist extremists in Afghanistan in the name of rabid anti-communism ultimately strengthened the hand of anti-western forces and was a big contributing factor to the mess that we find ourselves in today (9/11, terrorist networks, a prolonged ground war in Afghanistan, etc.). Because these consequences are not spelled out, the movie leaves the viewer feeling sympathetic to Mr. Wilson (hey, check out his latest projects on the Internet) instead of seeing him as an individual whose actions were contrary to the best interests of his country and the West as a whole. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2336 | pending | fc2f8ef6-0564-4647-8e51-bc8da4d395f3 | I'm sure that the folks who made this movie think they're doing something wonderfully politically correct, because they manage to criticize U.S. wars in Afghanistan and particularly Iraq by suggesting that the U.S. does war well, but doesn't clean up afterward, thus sowing the seeds for future trouble. Furthermore, they do this without making Islamists the enemy AND without making Republicans the enemy, since it's the Republicans that are in office and are doing this supposedly great thing, bringing down the USSR by covertly supplying a war in Afghanistan.<br /><br />But seriously now . . . do we really want a movie that repeatedly says "let's go kill some Russians!" like that's the greatest thing a red-blooded American can do? And are we supposed to find this congressman adorable because he surrounds himself with women with big hair and revealing clothes? Even his supposedly smart assistant, who is always dressed professionally, keeps looking at Charlie like he's just the most wonderful, handsomest, greatest guy around. As if she's Nancy Reagan to his Ronnie. Julia Roberts does a bang-up job in her role, but basically women are really demeaned in this movie, and it was really annoying. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2337 | pending | eecec8c7-8a98-457e-8396-632239a303ed | The 3 stars are for Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Nothing else and no one else in this movie deserves even a wee smidgen of a star. Well, OK, Amy Adams deserves a wee smidgen, but the smidgenometer doesn't seem to be working, so I'll stick with 3. Tom Hanks...nothing. Julia Roberts...nothing. Mike Nichols...do you see a trend yet? Aaron Sorkin...OMG, not a chance. <br /><br />I could rant on for several paragraphs about the way Charlie Wilson's War glosses over history, morality, legitimacy and so on, but I don't think any such rant could outweigh the gushing of Aaron Sorkin fans. The rest of you, beware.Spend your movie money elsewhere.<br /><br />Still, if you're looking for a pithy comment, here's mine. You can put hot fudge sauce on a pile of garbage, but it changes nothing. Garbage is garbage and so is Charlie Wilson's War. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2338 | pending | ec6ed354-0c73-493e-a189-892925f0004c | Your time and brains will be much better spent reading or listening to Charlie Wilson's War. Phillip Seymour Hoffman, plays the most enjoyable character in the movie, Gust, the Greek, and he plays him as a eunuch. Gust, in the book, is hard core and completely free to speak his mind. In the movie, he's not even shown as being equally important to Charlie. And poor Charlie is never shown donating blood (which he did every time he visited the camps in Pakistan). In short, the movie is too bland, and the history is too old for our modern time. We don't really care about the end of the cold war and the defeat of the Soviet Union (which happened in spite of Reagan, not as a result of) by a well financed group of people who were extremely willing to fight. Not quite the lesson we need to be hearing and seeing considering how well the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are going. (As I read the book, I kept getting that deja vu feeling, except it was present day). | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2339 | pending | 864929a2-e705-4622-89a8-6679dfa30327 | "Love and Human Remains" is one of those obviously scripted, obviously acted, obviously staged flicks which is so obvious that the escape velocity from its contrivances and fabrication is beyond me. Not worth explaining, this amateurish flick tries to cram every clever line, every misanthropic overtone, every peculiar sexual predilection into one film with an absence of concern for making the pieces fit. In short, sensationalistic crap without the sensation...which pretty much just leaves crap. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2340 | pending | 3e159593-4092-4528-ac21-18cec6556fc7 | Love and human remains directed by Denys Arcand is an abysmally pathetic film as it is completely different from the kind of films he has been making all through his career.Making a different film is not an objectionable matter,what is troublesome is the fact that if a film from a master is complete out of tune then it is a really bad event. The film begins on a good note as there is some suspense created. However as the film progresses what is shown is just a futile attempt at creating something meaningful as Arcand shows us half a dozen oddball,whimsical characters whose lives are intertwined with each other.Homosexuality and Lesbianism are not of any consequences here. What is even more bothersome is the feeling of guilt related to the characters who are rather in a fix regarding their feelings towards each other and sexuality.Such a film would be of interest to some who wants to see a different Denys Arcand film.All in all,there would surely not be many takers for this film. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2341 | pending | 1bcb5457-df58-4d4e-a4fb-6393f9d26d3d | The premise is interesting and the cast does the best it can, but the script and the directorial effort are so poor that it is not surprising that this film was buried--which is fitting given the screenplay. As I watched this, I could not decide which was worse, the screenplay, or the directing. The actors are over the top, the art direction looks like a Disney movie, the music is contrived, and the sentiment so sweet that it gives viewers cavities. It's a bad attempt to imitate "FOur Weddings And A funeral". If one wants to watch comedy that is as flat as a pancake and how poor direction can turn a story into cavity sweetness, this is a good one to watch. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2342 | pending | 850769ba-f5da-4b9b-a774-8e3e722bba0e | Oddball black-comedy romance featuring a great cast and a less than stellar script. Brenda Blethyn ("Lovely & Amazing") is the title character 'Betty', a woman trapped in a loveless marriage with a man who is obviously having an affair with his beautiful, blonde secretary. Guess who's playing this minor role, yup! Naomi Watts ("Mulholland Drive") must of sandwiched this project in before her superstar status was insured with the blockbuster thriller "The Ring."<br /><br />On the male side of the cast list there's the woefully miscast Alfred Molina ("Frida") an old-fashioned undertaker who suddenly decides to reveal his desires for 'Betty' which have lain dormant for decades. Perhaps Miramax is hoping Molina's turn in the upcoming "Spider-Man 2" might generate some interest in this little trinket which belongs on the DVD rental shelf.<br /><br />But the award for wildest thankless performance goes to Christopher Walken ("Catch Me if You Can") who goes completely over the top as 'modern' undertaker with his Vegas-style funerals in a small provincial town. His character must have parachuted into the village because there's little reason for him to exist in this script.<br /><br />That said, if you'd like to see some top-notch actors engage in some low-brow humor then this one's for you, and if this isn't your cup-of-tea then try renting "Harold and Maude," the ultimate funeral movie that's still funny to this day. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2343 | pending | 263fef91-e8ba-4a92-9828-5603e7f985d1 | A good idea let down by heavy-handed production.<br /><br />Quite a bit of the dialogue was unintelligible because of the level of music/background sound, and this didn't help this reviewer. Nor did the Welsh accents, pretty impenetrable at times. Towards the end I lost the will to live trying to follow the dialogue.<br /><br />This movie didn't know whether to be a farce or a black comedy - and they require different approaches. Some of the incidents were laid on so thick that they only merited a groan, some were so unbelievable even for this sort of plot that they made the story just not worth following.<br /><br />The acting was in the main good - although the American just came over as a clone of the "Back to the future" mad scientist. The little boy was very good.<br /><br />I did watch it all the way through but God knows why: I can't remember laughing once. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2344 | pending | 17a99731-b2d1-4a1d-8bab-099956ed24d6 | How better to describe it than scuzzy criminals on TV? And I don't mean in the show COPS; here, they're actually being presented as protagonists.<br /><br />I don't see any remedial value in this show unless you have a perverse penchant for human tragedies. Whitney Houston is a tragic example of the fallen star; a star which Bobby Brown helped pull from the sky. Bobby Brown is nothing but a low-life criminal. Why watch him? Why does Whitney stand by him no matter how despicable he is? This couple should be locked up and it's a loathsome shame they are making money and achieving a modicum of fame from watching the septic tank which is their lives and the human waste which is their character. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2345 | pending | d23cb4da-12ca-437a-9581-53c2b71b941d | Though not a complete waste of time, 'Eighteen' really wasn't all sweet as it pretended to be. Nor are the ages of the actors they're portraying 18, my butt. McKellen could have actually shown up in the film telling us he was 30 and ask us to believe it. Even Michael J. Fox was more believable as a teen in 'Back to the Future' Parts II and III (okay, maybe not; they're probably equal believability.) If you can get past the obvious age flaw, you'll have either the complete void of acting or simply overacting (Paul Anthony's so called anguish, Clarence Sponagle's Lifetime moments, and even though I do favor Brendan Fletcher, it's best to just watch him, and more, in 'Freddy Vs. Jason,') incomprehensible scenes (a faster than Britney Spears marriage, incest to prove a point and a man who needs help to urinate, but still has one hand free I'm guessing this was the writer's fantasy,) an entire movie of despicable characters (Anthony might be playing someone that's 18, but acts like he's 12 and some odd "john" thrown in so Anthony's character Pip can save the day was there really a sex scene in front of a baby?) and practically every character questioning their own sexuality by strange actions/scenes. On the positive side, I did enjoy Ian McKellen's voice-over, seeing a (rarely well portrayed) straight/gay friendship, puppy love (from someone who collects stuffed puppies, that is,) good score, some decent dialogue (love the separation of gays and pedophilia wish more people would realize that) and acting from the female leads (as well as Cumming.) I can't really recommend it as it's really trying to be too many things gay tolerance, gay hustling, homelessness, WWII epic, priesthood, first love, flawed judges, etc, etc, etc on a shoestring budget. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2346 | pending | a5fd2dd2-a47e-427f-8c47-d0d8566e5e80 | On paper this movie has some chops: a street kid overcoming past trauma, rebuilding his life and succeeding when the world would have written him off. Great stuff, everyone loves a happy ending.<br /><br />In the theater though, there were some omissions that left the movie dead inside. The dialog was hollow and uninteresting, the characters were almost cartoonish in their lack of dimension and complexity, and why did everyone need to be gay? I have nothing against homosexual themes or characters in a movie but when it's used in this fashion not only is is offensive to homosexuals, it trivializes the lifestyle and cheapens the movie. If the story works without this cheap trick it should have been cut.<br /><br />Every character seemed to come out of the same cookie cutter form: Each had one major flaw and one minor flaw, every character is good hearted were they succeed or not, and everyone one of them had or is in an abusive relationship with someone.<br /><br />The most annoying fact of the movie is that they never let you get over that the name "pip" comes from great expectations. They give it to you once and that should be enough. The story shares enough with the Dickens classic to make this fact obvious.<br /><br />The most interesting part of the film is the story of the grandfather and the cassette he leaves for Pip and how Pip, the main character, learns how to grow up from the lessons learned from the tape. In the end, with lessons learned, Pip confronts his dark past and movies forward with his life. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2347 | pending | 9b7be423-f2f3-4c9d-b7d2-ba4d0eac41b9 | Four Guys (Jacks) go into the restaurant business with a fifth Guy and lose all common sense. They allow themselves to be abused worse than textile workers at the turn of the century without simply leaving the situation. This is truly one of the worst films I have ever seen. I just hope I can resell this item to someone who might like it. <br /><br />It is true that it holds your attention if you can let the illogical plot developments not bother you too much. It is very silly throughout however especially once a stranger enters the restaurant. Who is he? Guess.<br /><br /> | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2348 | pending | 66d6a690-918b-4287-a059-705a23e59ed0 | If you see the title "2069 A Sex Odyssey" in the video store, BEWARE!! The cover has Tori Wells and three other "80's" porn stars, and has a copyright of 1986. If you're like me (and I hope you're not) you'll think "80's porn? Tori Wells? Alright!" Trickery!! It was made in 1974 and has dubbed German stars! There's nothing inherently wrong with 70's German porn, but it's not my cup of tea, and it's nothing like what the cover leads you to believe you're getting. Once I got past my rage about the blatantly misleading jacket, I watched it anyway. It's a bad, bad movie. Sorry, I guess I didn't really get past the rage. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2349 | pending | 0b0d60c8-ed48-49a5-a7cf-fce1ff2d689d | "The New Twenty" is one of the worst films I have ever seen. Yes, some may argue that formulaic small budget films that strive for less may seem worse, but I would argue that a pseudo-intellectual anti-formulaic "indie" film that pretends to be more is worse. <br /><br />"The New Twenty" was written and directed by Chris Mason Johnson, and I will never get back the 91 minutes of my life that I wasted on his film.<br /><br />THE SCREENPLAY & CHARACTERS<br /><br />From beginning to end, the screenplay failed to provide an anti-hero or hero with a moral core that the audience would want to see succeed or fail. <br /><br />In story telling, the three dramatic conflicts are man vs. man, man vs. the world, and man vs. himself. <br /><br />The screenplay focuses on a group of college friends in New York, and is preoccupied with the dynamic of man vs. himself, where each of the film's characters are so self-absorbed in a stupor of depression and self-destructive behavior that the movie atrophies before the audiences very eyes. <br /><br />Each of the main characters indulge in unexplained bad behavior (heroin addiction with no history as to why the character is an addict; a fiancée who has sex with her fiancée's boss/investor, even though the character is written too smart to have sex with such a sleazy character; a man who begins as a decent guy, but is attracted to a foul-mouthed investor, and converts for some unknown reason into a similar foul-mouthed business jackass; a closeted chubby gay cyber geek, who does nothing, but find dates online; and a gay Asian man who dates an HIV positive older man, but has no scenes establishing why the relationship works and why love develops).<br /><br />Crucial scenes establishing the cause of the character's addiction, the suffering and self- loathing of the fiancée that might explain why she would sleep with a sleaze bag; the back story that would explain why a decent guy would be attracted to a "Gordon Gecko" type character and become a jackass; a story line for the chubby cyber geek; and more scenes of interaction between the Asian man and HIV positive boyfriend are all missing.<br /><br />Without proper establishing details, all of the characters' actions seem forced and contrived.<br /><br />DIRECTION, CINEMATOGRAPHY & SCORE<br /><br />I found Mr. Johnson's direction to be without a clear point of view, leaving the actors emotionally incoherent. <br /><br />The cinematography can be described as mundane at best. Mr. Johnson selected small spaces to shoot and failed to catch the grandeur of New York City. This failure created a claustrophobic film, that viewed like the filming of a stage play, and not a film.<br /><br />The score was embarrassingly absent from most of the film. I assume that Mr. Johnson is to blame, since he could have asked for full score to enhance understanding in each shot.<br /><br />CONCLUSION<br /><br />"The New Twenty" is an annoying and unmitigated failure in film-making. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2350 | pending | 02ec549f-0f8c-4498-90d4-a9dbf995994a | What we're given in this trying-to-be trendy film is a "frat-pack" of college friends, now approaching age 30 (which we all know, of course, their generation thinks of as the "new 20"). Consisting of four guys and a gal, we have thrust at us the following types: seemingly "unemployeds" and frequent drug users, along with one individual who is job successful and one who is trying-to-be. They are all, in their own way, drifting while trying to find both a future and emotional happiness. With one, possibly two exceptions, these are people this reviewer would definitely never care to come close to modeling myself after. There is disappointment after disappointment after disappointment in almost all their lives. Except in the instance of one individual (who appears on the way to finding it), none appears headed toward emotional satisfaction in his/her life. And so, about the only sincere moment in this film is when a knock at the door brings to the person answering it an unexpected and heartfelt "I love you."<br /><br />With only the exceptions mentioned, these people are the kind hardly deserving or worthy of several hundred thousands of dollars being thrown away in presenting their stories.<br /><br />PS--Writer/director, Johnson, definitely appears to have a problem with showing gay sexual scenes----with no such problems in presenting more prolonged and revealing heterosexual ones. Why might that be?<br /><br />**** | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2351 | pending | 6fd25061-7e36-465f-8b78-ede183edd759 | Talk about marketing. The poster/home video cover of 'The New Twenty' broadcasts a half-naked male in a "Wolfe Video." For those familiar with the gay-themed movies this broadcasts a "must-see." (I loved reading one reviewer (from another site) stating they had been "tricked" into seeing a "Sodomite" movie. Are you serious? The tagline itself as the word "gay." The Lord gives you eyes, yet you cannot see
) That being said, despite the number of gay characters, stereotyped, no less (see: the lonely gay, the AIDS victim gay and the closeted gay) it's more about long-term friendship and characters that grow apart. In fact, if anything, there's more (here's one for Christians to complain about) heterosexual couples having sex outside of, gasp!, marriage. Not to mention backstabbing, drinking to excess and drug usage. I see this more of a made for TV-Logo or Showtime movie than big screen effort. Sure, I loved the cinematography, some of the actors could act and I always love seeing a big-group-of-friends that actually act like they've known each other for a million years. But we've see this all before. Nothing really "new" here. Barely an original idea hence bringing back the same 'ole "I have AIDS, let's deal with that" for a good portion of the movie and boy, our friend has a serious drug problem, but let's not deal with that until it's almost too late. That's so (US) 'Queer as Folk' and 'Broken Hearts Club,' respectfully. The film deals with a group of college buddies, now grown (in size not minds) who have to eventually grow up and each trying their best while failing. Strangely, as in most of these independent movies, the most interesting, to me at least, was the heavier-set one, Ben. He stole each scene, but, again, there wasn't much to take. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2352 | pending | 8ecff048-3d7a-4d43-a95d-7529178f4402 | Synopsis Correction: The ending does not show Ben cruising online for guys. He is looking up Arabic Language courses at The Presido Military Acadamy in San Francisco. Perhaps to Join the War in Iraq as a translator, (FYI- many of the dishonorable discharges from "D'ont ask D'ont tell have been Translators (they are now it major short supply) Ben Also spoke Russian. This movie is a good time capsule of life in Manhatten but quite a bit of non reality here. Mostly a good laugh at Lame social skills and the sad portrayal of "Grown up" twenty somethings not developing beyond the college party mode. Also a brief study of the always changing scene in Manhatten.(somehow it Always stays close to the edge of the same B.S.)<br /><br />Watch together the films "Englishman in New York"" and the "The New Twenty" Both good for Nostalgia. I think the movie "twenty" shows how far the blur between gay and straight as evolved.<br /><br />These two films are GAY Time Travel For Sure!!!!ENJOY | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2353 | pending | e581f75a-0a72-4c02-b829-dbf2ac873ae0 | Ugh. Unfortunately this is one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. None of the characters are remotely likable, which makes this film difficult to watch. They're all miserable thirty year olds who don't take responsibility for their crummy lives. I was only able to make it through a half hour of the film, so there's a chance things got better afterward, but I doubt it. I can't imagine five people as self-absorbed as they are would manage to remain friends with each other for ten years.<br /><br />Three sex scenes in the first half hour were also disappointing, as they had no relevance to the plot, and were clearly a gratuitous (failed) attempt to bring some life to this otherwise dull film.<br /><br />Save your time and money, and skip this movie. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2354 | pending | cf0aea7f-f7d7-41dd-9884-744cb040e093 | imagine if you took the Christ myth, mixed it with a healthy dose of porn, against a backdrop of bad sci-fi blackxploitation(brotha from another planet like) throw in a dash of after school special, and lots of really bad kung fu fighting. oh and some decent break dancing. with an awesome casio keyboard soundtrack.<br /><br />and some how they make this even worse than you could imagine. there are at least 4 rape scenes, at least one great car explosion, a buff black guy running around in his undies with an Uzi.<br /><br />add alcohol and this is the perfect movie.<br /><br />i mean lots and lots and lots of alcohol | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2355 | pending | 2cb6b72b-2f4f-44f1-9e04-55bc643d4613 | This film almost gave me a nervous breakdown. When I was recovering from appendicitis a few years ago, I had just started teaching in secondary (high) school. The whole teaching business was all a bit nervewracking for a beginner, but to mentally prepare myself for going back into the classroom I decided to watch some rather awful films. The Flintstones was one of the films that I chose, and then I put "King Of The Streets" (the UK title of 'Alien Warrior') on. Just before it finished I found myself almost in tears at the sheer waste of it all...my life, the film stock, the £2 I had paid for it a couple of weeks ago in the Blockbuster ex rental section, the time it must have taken to print the sleeve art, the effort of the editors and musicians involved in the soundtrack (as negligable as their efforts were)...the list goes on.<br /><br />I love bad films. Let me make this perfectly clear - I LOVE watching crappy films from Blockbusters. Me and my mate Dan used to sit and watch many, many cheapjack horrors and laugh at them. But this was a different type of crappy film. I don't think that anything has come close to this, not even Tobe Hooper's "Death Trap" (which is probably my second worst film in the world). The whole making a car from abandoned parts section nearly killed me; the repetition of music at any available opportunity, regardless of on-screen events; the whole.... AAAGGGHHHHHHH!!!!! I can't even carry on with this 'critical' dissection, as my gag reflex has started. The futility of that film, even now, three years after I watched it for the first and last time, still renders me speechless (but I am still able to type). The whole "making a car from odd parts" section had me contemplating horrible things.<br /><br />I implore you, if you are interested in watching this film, just gaze at the cover of the video and imagine the worst possible version of the story synopsis on the back. I can almost guarantee that it won't be even half as bad as this film actually is. Don't, under any circumstances, contemplate actually watching it for any reason whatsoever. Not if you are a Christian and you want to see a Christ allegory; not if you are a bad movie afictionado and you want to experience the true nadir of trash; not even if you want your life to seem longer (and believe me, every second that this film runs seems like at least a minute). Make no mistake about it, this film is unholy. It is the antichrist in video form. As Bo Cattlett in Get Shorty said: "I've seen better film on teeth". | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2356 | pending | 186ca77a-acd5-46fe-b9b1-f544b8c7d349 | Hargh... this film is so bad it's almost good. Trash at its best. Jesus' bro vs. pimps...come on. I'd say that you'd actually have to see this, it's so bad... my sides hurt when I laughed. I can't understand why this isn't in the worst 100. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2357 | pending | ce61f67a-26ec-4bd5-a782-d22cd2195ba0 | I think it's the first time that I go inside a theater and go out so disappointed. There were two reasons why I went to see "Astérix et les Vikings": first as a film buff, and second as a big Astérix fan.<br /><br />In the end, the film doesn't satisfy any request. It's simply a big animated mess and it proves that the Astérix franchise is going from bad to worse.<br /><br />In fact, it has been this way since the death of first scenarist René Goscinny in 1977. His faithful collaborator, illustrator Albert Uderzo took his place, but the following books were clearly lacking of the quality that was present during the Goscinny years.<br /><br />"Astérix et les Vikings" is based on the book "Astérix et les Normands", which was published during the Goscinny reign. The basic story is the same: Goudurix, Abraracourcix' nephew' arrives to the village and Astérix et Obélix must turn him into a real man, while the Vikings come to Gaul in order to discover what fear is, because it seems that fear gives wings.<br /><br />The similarities end here. What follows in the book is a non-stop series of laughs, gags and hilarious dialog with the result that the Vikings do discover fear and they flee Gaul. The movie is silly, unfunny, fast-paced, corny... Well, just name a default and it has good chances of being applied...<br /><br />The difference between the book and the movie could be more acceptable if the movie was good. But the new ideas simply crashes it in a bottomless pit. Even older Astérix movies such as "Astérix le Gaulois", which almost transferred the lines one by one without changing them are easily better.<br /><br />Animation has the quality of other 21st century movies, but it has its faults and any film beginner could find the mistakes. The greatest example is the continuity mistake, where the day follows the night after a fraction of second, in the same sequence.<br /><br />Imagine. They took animation studios from numerous countries and they still can't get adequate film-making.<br /><br />The changes of the original story are simply unbearable. And they still could be even if there was no original story. Goudurix, in the movie, has a pet pigeon named SMS and who act as his cell phone (!). Grossebaf, the Viking chief, has a rebellious teen daughter named Abba (!) and she constantly defies her father's authority. There's also a stupid Viking wizard, his cartoonish dumb and muscular son, the faithful bride of Grossebaf who is obsessed with decoration (her name is Vikea!) and... well I can't stand that much longer.<br /><br />We're far from the original gags from the original book. The biggest problem is the difficulty of transferring the images to the big screen, mainly because the greatest laughs in the books come from the verbal jokes and visual gags which do not have the same appeal on a theatre screen. I remember that the greatest moments in the book were Obélix laughing at the invaders' names (which all finish in 'af') and Goudurix tries to scare them in ridiculous ways.<br /><br />And if everything wasn't enough, somebody in the publicity staff decided to write on the movie poster that there's an already existing Céline Dion song which would be featured in the final credits. If it was a new song, I could have understood. But using an old song is only another proof that the movie is so badly made that they're ready to do anything in order to attract film-goers.<br /><br />The only good point for this movie is that it is so stupid and the end is so bad that we just can't walk out of the theater without being left cold. In a summer release, it just can't hurt...<br /><br />The only other acceptable point of the movie is how Goudurix becomes courageous. His psychological transformation in the book is too spontaneous and not credible, while it's better pictured in the movie and the motivation point is more believable.<br /><br />So if you haven't seen the movie yet, don't waste your money on it. Grab the book instead.<br /><br />Oh René, why did you leave us? | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2358 | pending | 3169f24b-d1ae-4f79-8b64-d95b8c219823 | This film is a perfect example that a movie can not be successful with a high budget alone. It's obvious that there was a lot of time and effort dedicated into this: the animation is fluid, detailed and superb- the soundtrack isn't too memorable except for the ending song by Celine Dion (at least I think it was her). The musical score is powerful full orchestra material. Kudos to the animators and music composers! 9/10. However, the story and characters fall flat. It feels very 'been there, done that', predictable and plain uninteresting. The characters have distinct personalities but nothing too likable. They annoyed me to no end. I tried really hard to like this, but I didn't care about the story- it was cliché action-adventure plot. There were 'jokes' that weren't funny. It was vomit inducing predictable from start to end. The dialogue was cliché and awful- especially the last line "It's not ... that gives you wings, it's love!" Whatever it was, I remember cringing. I was wishing it would hurry up and finish. I wasn't the only one either- the people I went with thought it was boring. Please watch the Asterix and Obelix Cleopatra film if you're going to watch any. This was a waste of time. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2359 | pending | 8dc8e7eb-d255-40ed-9d9e-5999c5dcd110 | This Asterix is very similar to modern Disney cartoons. Soulless, technically good and the usual in-jokes for adults. Maybe it's because this is the first cartoon I watched after Laputa: Castle in the Sky, but it was quite disappointing.<br /><br />The plot is contrived and forgettable but it involves Asterix and Obelix going to the Viking's territory to rescue a spoilt teenager who then learns humility and finds love as well. Oh and initially they don't get on but after facing adversity they all share a deep bond of friendship... yadda yadda.<br /><br />The best bit is to watch out for the little jokes. The Vikings get all the best ones. Such as Vikea (the Viking's chief's wife) giving a list of furniture and skulls to bring back from the next raid. Or the Vikings not knowing the meaning of mercy (literally). Oh, and Olaf the dumbest Viking is actually hilarious (as much for the voice acting as the dialogue).<br /><br />For example, aboard the Viking ship: (After a speech by Abba, the captain's daughter) Olaf: Who is this new guy? Captain: That's my daughter, cod-brain! Olaf: Your... daughter's... a man? | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2360 | pending | 489c8be4-cd71-4243-b50d-7be90407d14e | It's not awful but what a waste... Lousy gags, bad music, poor drawings and animation...<br /><br />Regarding the impressive number of animators and intervallists on this picture (from, hum... a hundred different studios throughout the world? Come on, how can you expect something coherent when doing an animated movie this way!) I wonder if one guy on the credits = one drawing! The lines are rough, the 3d work inadequate (I'm not against it, but not in this film) But the backgrounds are corrects. The storyline is rather dumb, far from the precise cleverness of the BD, and obviously aimed at an international audience. To distribute a movie all over the world doesn't mean to take everyone in the world for a simple-minded guy... A cultural object is far more interesting when challenging, even when it is a foreign movie (being french in this case it's even worse!).<br /><br />Some new stuff is doing well (the Olaf character, sometimes, like with the stone explanation, but it's not great) but the modern references are exasperating (music, SMS -not even a verbal joke, just a stupid bird named short message service: does anyone know imagination?). But, hey, it's a M6 / TPS production with some Celine Dion in it... pathetic.<br /><br />Asterix is underemployed and Obelix talks too much. Goudurix could be great (like in the book) but he is too clearly a "cool guy" having a love affair (with an uninteresting made up female character). In fact, only the vikings (wizard excepted) are funny. Too much action, not enough laughs. The best part of the movie are the end credits. Not the music, but the few stills it contains. BD style. Well, definitely, Asterix is not made to move! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2361 | pending | f91be9b4-279e-4f57-9b7e-79c6b7783cb6 | I've always said that there's nothing to beat the original form: the comics. I've been proved right again. This, like all of the other movie takes on the Asterix series, failed to impress. The makers of this movie don't get it that what makes all the other such comic-turned-movies (x-men, superman et al.) ventures successful is that they all deviate from the original comic versions and adapt it to make it more watchable. Agreed, this movie did deviate, in the sense that this movie was a cross of two Asterix books, viz. Asterix and the Great Crossing & Asterix and the Normans. Also, uncharacteristic of the Asterix series (save Asterix and the Secret Weapon) , a love interest for one of the main characters was introduced. All this ended up doing was create a childishly immature storyline. The funny parts were very few and far between. All in all, a total waste of time and money watching this, let alone at theaters, even at home. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2362 | pending | aa73739c-c369-41b2-84f7-6a6240bdff2a | Danny De Vito shows us here he is definitely, indeed infinitely, a better on screen performer than off. He plays the part of Owen, a miserable would-be writer with a cranky old mother (delightfully played by Anne Ramsey) he would like to see dead. Billy Crystal is Larry, a very frustrated writing teacher who has an estranged wife he feels the same way about. So Owen, after viewing Hitchcock's "Strangers on a Train", suggests they swap murders.<br /><br />As director though, De Vito's control is inconsistent as he wastes this clever idea, while his film lurches from the very humorous to the very bland. He and Crystal are okay in the lead roles, but the show belongs to Anne Ramsey as the cantankerous Mrs. Lift.<br /><br />Saturday, June 20, 1992 - Video | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2363 | pending | eddd37ae-992c-4752-b446-3b5586b07376 | This is a comedy version of "Strangers on a Train". It works pretty well. I am a harsh grader, so the 3 rating reflects mostly on the characters and plot. The performances are extremely good, all of them. Of course, the two stars, DeVito and Crystal, shine most. Each performer acts well enough to play off of. The comedy works in a level just short of slapstick. DeVito characters work best when depraved. His character, portrayed as a writing hack, would probably be more real if he was published and lauded as much as most hacks are. His character would, in real life, have a great agent and multiple solicitations. The characters are one dimensional, which is okay in comedy. But Crystals's character is not written very well. His desire to kill the "moma" all of a sudden makes no sense at all. It looks like a pitiful attempt at humor. The pitiful attempts are not too often, and the movie flows fairly well. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2364 | pending | 4c037ba6-6bd8-4c04-9633-47e97ea3f1d6 | Leonard Rossiter and Frances de la Tour carry this film, not without a struggle, as the script was obviously hurriedly cobbled together out of old episodes. When it came out, this must have been a real disappointment as it's also done on a bus ticket budget. Attempts to move it out of the house - which is jarringly unrecognisable, a bad job all round there - with a picnic, fantasy sequences, rugby and a boxing match in the local gym simply don't work. Most of these are just character-light setups for a solitary not-particularly good gag. That said, the interplay of Rossiter and de la Tour (and anybody else with him) is mostly hilarious; they even manage to make a soda syphon gag work, but you can see the struggle with recycling a literally uninspired script that changes plot half way through. Don Warrington has very little to do except 'be black', and due to the random script hacks Christopher Strauli changes character at least twice. And in the end, as he often did in the TV series (though you might not remember - read the scripts), Eric Chappell lets you down with a 'time's up' ending. Were they that cynical, or just too desperate to be in the film business? Rossiter and de la Tour are always funny but as a film, it's a terrible postscript to a fondly remembered TV series. RIP. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2365 | pending | 6b606a3f-edd2-467c-a63f-96d382d422a8 | This film derives from a Long Running ITV sitcom by the same name.The Sitcom lasted for half a decade roughly and brought to our screens Rigsby,Phillip,Alan,Mrs Jones & Vienna.<br /><br />Then in 1980 The film version hit the Cinemas.Now when it did,sadly Richard Beckinsale had passed away & was replaced by Only when i laugh actor Chris Strauli.<br /><br />I myself felt this gave the film a different feel.I would have preferred if it wasn't shot as Richard was a key character.Thats like having the porridge film without Godber or Mackay!<br /><br />The Film did have some classics moments definitely but it felt a bit De-Ja-Vu! Many parts were seen before in the TV Series. Now if you saw the movie first rather than the Series you would get a different feeling about it then the series fan!<br /><br />Saying that Leonard is definitely on top form and makes the movie,just like in the TV series.The Film has recently had a new lease of life on DVD and is usually on Terrestrial over a quiet weekend.It is a cracking good film,but for Rigsby fans you may feel that youv'e seen it similarly before.<br /><br />Saying that though its worth a buying/watching<br /><br />7.8/10 | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2366 | pending | 4c27d6a4-5908-4d8a-8626-1fd96ebf1289 | The film version of 'Rising Damp' came out two years after the television series ended. Like many fans I duly went along to the cinema when it opened. I came away bitterly disappointed. Eric Chappell could not have spent very much time writing the script; most of it is rehashed ideas from old episodes. At the time of the film's release, the 'Rising Damp' series was still being repeated regularly on I.T.V. so the public was being asked to pay to see something they'd seen already. At least the 'On The Buses' movies boasted original screenplays.<br /><br />Secondly, Richard Beckinsale had died the year before, so they eliminated the character of 'Alan' as a mark of respect, substituting art student 'John', played by Christopher Strauli of 'Only When I Laugh' fame. It simply wasn't the same.<br /><br />As another poster has pointed out, Rigsby's boarding house looked nothing like the one used in the series, being bigger and altogether cleaner.<br /><br />Director Joe McGrath was one of the directors who worked on the original 'Casino Royale', a film steeped in surreal humour. 'Rising Damp' also has its share of 'Walter Mitty' style fantasy sequences, such as the 'Saturday Night Fever' parody. Personally, I found them horribly out of place. A case of 'over-egging the pudding'.<br /><br />On the plus side, Leonard Rossiter is as magnificent as ever as the seedy 'Rigsby', as are Frances De La Tour as 'Ruth' and Don Warrington as 'Philip. Its just a shame the film isn't worthy of their talents.<br /><br />When Rossiter died in 1984, it was shown by I.T.V. as a tribute, with its final scene - showing Rigsby laying prostrate at the foot of the stairs - removed in the interests of good taste. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2367 | pending | ed4ec727-06ba-414a-b3d0-fc12817fc82f | Doesn't this seem somewhat familiar? Oh wait, that's right.. 90% of the jokes in this movie have already been done in the TV series. What's the point in repeating yourself, you may ask? Is it for the benefit of the Americans who haven't seen the programme? Did the scriptwriters run out of inspiration? Or maybe everyone on set suffered a sudden attack of amnesia, and forgot they'd covered this ground already? Either way, for someone who has sat through the first three series, this was just really boring. I had to turn it off during the 'tablets that turn your water green' part.. yes it is very funny, but give us something original for goodness sake! Actually, if the best new stuff you can come up with is Leonard Rossiter's take on Saturday Night Fever, you can forget it.<br /><br />The guy they got to replace the late Richard Beckinsale is a lookalike alright, but not half the actor. Personally I would exorcised the role, as a mark of respect to him. Or better yet, not bothered making the film at all, and just let the hilarity of the TV series speak for itself. But no, they couldn't do that.. not as long as there was money to be made. Sad, really. 4/10 | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2368 | pending | 4e3e0f8f-f900-4b8c-8e8a-5b2f7236749b | no way out 2007 was a really bad and if it is the road to wrestlemania they choose the wrong road.<br /><br />Chris Benoit & the hardy boys def MVP & Minn: in my view this was the best match of the night some good wrestling here but not much. 7/10<br /><br />cruisweight championship open(which chavo Guerrero won): awful, no high flying at all, really quick and boring. 3/10<br /><br />little bastard & Finlay def little bogeyman & the bogeyman: this was more comedy than wrestling, some laughs. 5/10<br /><br />Kane def king booker: a decent effort by these two but they could do better. 6/10<br /><br />wwe tag team championship Paul London & Brian Kendrick def deuce & domino:another boring match,no high flying by the champs. 4/10<br /><br />ecw world title Mr Kennedy def bobby lashley (disquilification): in my mind the worst match of the night. truly awful.i thought ecw was no rules,i was wrong 2/10<br /><br />john cena & Shawn Michaels def Batista & the undertaker: an okay match but could have been a hell of a lot better. 6/10<br /><br />overall this was bulls*it id give it a 3/10 | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2369 | pending | 8935ee17-7255-45d2-b57f-91fecfaff142 | A good ol' boy film is almost required to have moonshine, car chases, a storyline that has a vague resemblance to "plot" and at least one very pretty country gal, barefoot with short shorts and a low top. The pretty gal is here (dressed in designer jeans)-- but the redneck prerequisites stop there. Jimmy Dean is a natural as a sausage spokesman but as a tough guy former sheriff, he comes up way short. Big John is big, but he isn't convincing with the "bad" part of his moniker. Bug-eyed Jack Elam is a hoot as always and Bo Hopkins has been playing this same part for decades; Ned Beatty also does his part in a small role... but there is no STORY. It smells more like an episode of In The Heat Of The Night than a feature film. Cornball cornpone with easily predictable sentiment. Perhaps the most glaring problem with this movie is Charlie Daniels singing the theme. You know the one; it was made famous by... Jimmy Dean. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2370 | pending | dd7def6f-852c-4122-a32f-8a8adfeefaaa | "TNT Jackson" isn't completely unwatchable. But either the version I saw on DVD was edited with a weed-whacker, or the screenplay itself is the lowest level of grind-house/blaxploitation sausage. Or maybe both.<br /><br />Jeanne Bell is supposed to have been a Playmate at one point in her career,and the movie makes the most of the connection by displaying her breasts at least two times more than was really necessary (including a hilarious topless fight scene that I am pretty sure was meant to be funny). I will admit, they are quite nice. Still, she's sort of average looking and doesn't have the charisma of a Foxy Brown, of even a Cleopatra Jones. She does have her moments as an actress in the film, though, but it would have been nice if the director had pushed her a little harder or the screenplay had given her a chance to do more than emote "attitude" and kick people.<br /><br />Speaking of kicking people, the fight scenes (the other putative reason to watch a film like this) are pretty poorly done.There's no real choreography to speak of here, just people posing and sticking feet and fists in the general direction of their opponents. One minor exception is a nice moment with an opponent equipped with butterfly folding knives; another is a sequence near the very end where an obvious stunt double for Bell (and maybe for Stan Shaw) leap around and do some decent sweeps and groundwork for a minute or two before Bell/"Jackson" punches her enemy's liver out, Shaw collapses and the screenplay just stops. (Again, I will admit that this is very much in the tradition of Shaw Brother quickies since time immemorial).<br /><br />There are a couple of supporting actors who are actually better than the film deserves (I'm thinking of "Joe" and the fellow playing the drug lord's right hand man). There's a halfway decent funk laden soundtrack that complements the action on the screen and add a star to the rating by itself. There's a semi-dodgy sex scene that manages to be effective almost in spite of itself.<br /><br />This one is strictly for hardcore fans of blaxploitation. I saw it out of sheer curiosity, and I'm not sorry I took the time. But I can't imagine wanting to take the time to see it again unless I decide to write a dissertation on the pop culture intersections of "Kung Fu Theater" and "Foxy Brown". | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2371 | pending | 9d981700-002f-4e66-b74a-76dc5346c33d | A young woman nicknamed "T.N.T." for being virtual dynamite in a fight and a knockout in terms of looks to boot, goes to the most lawless part of Hong Kong in search of her missing brother Stag Jackson. When she learns he has been murdered, she decides she will bring the killer to justice in a fashion only she can.<br /><br />Sounds good, doesn't it. Well, there's really nothing wrong with the basic premise as a starting base for a martial arts/blaxploitation action thriller, which is what this aims to be. The leads actually prove pretty good too with Jeanne Bell fitting nicely into the role of "T.N.T." and Stan Shaw doing well as the ambitious, power-hungry Charlie. Where this fails miserably is in terms of the fighting action it offers up. The fight scenes are totally and completely unconvincing and/or sometimes so completely over the top it reaches the point of ridiculousness which doesn't at all help when the basic focus of your movie is a Kung Fu action heroine. Also the poor lighting, actors sporting accents making them hard to understand, the confusing camera-work and the sometimes poor sound doesn't help this obvious low budget effort out either any. This does deliver in one area which may delight some fans, it does offer up plenty of the T in "T & A", in fact practically every fight scene in the film is proceeded by some type of nude scene and Jeanne Bell actually does have one extended fight scene in which she is completely topless.<br /><br />In the end, this fails to be something you want to revisit because the fight scenes are so pathetically, laughingly bad. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2372 | pending | b6cd0ac1-e634-4ed6-8b12-1968d56c8793 | Now any Blaxploiation fan will recognise the ingredients: big Afros, topless babes, surreally bad fashions and some 'jive' talk. In this case add in a lead who can't act, a plot that makes little sense, editing by someone with no hands who has been blindfolded and the most god-awful fight scenes and you have 'TNT Jackson'. Not quite bad enough to be good, but not good enough to be bad, this is a wonderful mess from start to finish. I especially loved the endless continuity errors and the lead's white stunt double.<br /><br />This is so '70s bad Far Eastern martial arts meets black power that it hurts, but boy it hurts so good! I am ashamed to admit that I almost enjoyed it. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2373 | pending | 9c741279-8e78-460d-9db6-cbe72b7c34a2 | This extremely bargain-basement Blaxploitation/Kung-Fu hybrid was in my country released by a questionable DVD label that usually speaking just occupies with the transfer of pure crap onto disc, so that wasn't exactly a favorable herald. Several other titles were released in the same series, like "The Black Six", "The Black Gestapo" and "The Black Godfather" and judging by all their low ratings and negative reviews none of these belong to the elite of the 70's Blaxploitation hype, neither. "TNT Jackson" is a pretty lousy film, completely lacking a significant plot but featuring far too many laughable fighting scenes and horrible acting to compensate. Apparently Roger Corman never too embarrassed to make some easy money assigned two of his most loyal acolytes to rapidly invent a simplistic story that would appeal to fans of both oriental Kung-Fu movies and contemporary trendy Blaxploitation flicks. The result Cirio H. Santiago and Dick Miller came up with was "TNT Jackson"; the tale of an arse-whooping black babe traveling to Hong Kong in search of her missing brother. She quickly discovers he was killed by a criminal network of drug-smugglers and swears to avenge him. Mrs. Jackson smoothly infiltrates into the underground and encounters macho pimps, helpful undercover agents, loads of vicious Kung-Fu fighters. Only one thing's for sure; they all want a piece of TNT's ravishing body in one way or another. I sincerely doubt movie concepts get any more elementary than this, but unfortunately - all the other aspects suck too. The battle scenes are overlong and moreover pathetically staged. Jeannie Bell and the other poor suckers try really hard to stare menacingly and assume a tough position, but eventually all they ever do is kick in the air and stupidly leap across rooms. The cinematography is horrid, the soundtrack is vastly disappointing (whatever happened to soul music?), the few dialogs are poorly written and the acting performances are inferior. Speaking of which, Jeannie Bell is undeniably a beautiful woman, but still she can't hold a candle to Tamara Dobson or Pam Grier. There's only one really good and memorable scene in "TNT Jackson", namely the famous hotel room battle where Bell, entirely naked except for panties, repeatedly switches the light on and off whilst kicking the hell out of some goons. Amusing scene ... I just haven't figured out yet whether it's thanks to the light switch ingenuity or Bell's perfectly shaped breasts. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2374 | pending | 10864876-de59-4e97-98ee-344d1ade4f6a | I cannot believe how this atrocity managed to capture the hearts and minds of a cross-section of the 'bright young things' of its era, but I'm certain I wish it hadn't. In my opinion it is an inaccurate, poorly acted, weakly scripted, pretentiously directed piece of gumpf. The brief outings to an imagined reality bludgeon any humour to death. The situations are unsubtle exaggerations which make the the already flimsy characters even more unbelievable and detestable. The romance is dull, the end is unsatisfying and ruins the only sensible drugs message in the film and the simple plot ('Withnail and I,' 'Fear and Loathing') is tested to extremes with the uninteresting motion of the film. In short this film as a blatant visual assault with no hint of skill or initiative. I condemn it to the ash heap of history and pray it stays there. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2375 | pending | 6be1519d-15a5-4e25-b180-f895cf262271 | utterly useless... having been there, done that with the subject matter i have to say this captures the clubbing atmosphere in absolutely no respect. It may have done so had the characters not just been mouthpieces for incredibly dire, unrealistic drivel. So many cringe-worthy scenes that would put The Office to shame (not a compliment to this film). It also may have helped to have some semblance of a story, a point, a message, a commentary, anything. Seriously, Kevin & Perry Go Large had more to say on the subject than this film (term used very loosely in this case). There should be minus numbers reserved for films like this. -10 (extra turd) | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2376 | pending | 38454229-78d4-4a88-b1d4-ac443f91589d | "The Best Movie of the 90's" "The Welsh Trainspotting"....Aye, right! I went into this movie with pretty high expectations, and it was all downhill from there.<br /><br />This movie was supposed to be this archetypal movie on the drug culture of the early 90's, and was going to allow us all to see inside this scene, and shatter the media's preconceptions following the moral panic which followed the death of Leah Betts in 1995. Unfortunately it has fallen a long way short. <br /><br />Where Trainspotting was able to treat you like an adult on the subject, and potential problems that surround drugs, this just provided us with some schmaltzy tale of the wonder of drugs, and how it can like, you know, like totally open your mind. Cue some guff about Bill Hicks, and Howard Marks ad nausea. It is painfully bad at times. I mean, the scene at the end between Lulu and her Auntie actually made me laugh out loud.<br /><br />Now maybe I am just a cynic, but the way Jip leads us through this tale is like listening to THAT Acid frazzled guy you once met at a house party, who talks to you about how "the man" is holding us back, and how Acid has released him from the strains of modern society. You just wanna shake some sense into him, and ask him to leave the premises.<br /><br />The script was a real problem for me, because where Trainspotting had Irvine Welsh's excellent book to cite from, this is written and directed by Justin Kerrigan. The words "Jack of all trades, master of none" come to mind. You can see where his inspiration comes from, particularly in the style of narration from main character Jip (which sets the main character in a social situation where he speaks directly to the camera, and outlines what is going through his mind as the scenario plays out) The problem with this is that some of the speeches to camera are just painful to watch. Mainly this comes down to a lack of empathy for Jip, but they are so desperate to sound philosophical that they just end up sounding like your average A-Level drama project. The direction is fine, and the intentions are good, but it is so lacking in any integrity that you start to wonder what the hype is about.<br /><br />Saying that though, it is not all bad. There are moments which are genuinely very amusing, and entertaining. Moff is the highlight of the movie for me. For an independent movie it also managed to attract a high numbers of quality British actors/actresses, which maybe outlines why there was such a buzz about the movie.<br /><br />Best movie of the 90's? Not by a long shot, but if you're looking for a solid Sunday night movie, then this might just be your bag. Inevitably though, the movie is flawed by the hype that surrounds it. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2377 | pending | a8d24f1a-c655-42df-b3ff-01b95da660a3 | If I wouldn't have had any expectations of this film, it might have received a 5 or 6. As it stands, I give it a 3. The acting is poor, the factual accuracy of the drugs it discusses is lacking, and I feel no empathy whatsoever for the characters.<br /><br />I watched 'Adam & Paul' immediately before watching this film, and I both laughed and cried on several occasions. This film did not strike even a similar chord. The directors of 'Human Traffic' may have some off-hand experience of ecstasy, but there is no demonstration of actual drug-related semantic knowledge here. In fact, I find it rather offensive and contraproductive to the strife of making current drug laws less politically oriented.<br /><br />Watch 'Requiem for a Dream' if what you're looking for is an amazing, touching film about drugs. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2378 | pending | b92b742d-f729-4b58-ad43-463885c66732 | Human Traffic is purely a `been there, done that' experience only this time it's quite limp.<br /><br />Major themes explored are paranoia, male impotence and jealousy but only mildly and poorly.<br /><br />A lot of the movie seems to want to imitate Trainspotting (drug / `clubbing' culture) but it fails to include the low times / come-downs that Trainspotting deals with (eg: issues with death / dependence, etc). It even tries to come up with a similar monologue to Ewan McGreggor's classic `Choose Life' speech but `The Milky Bars are on me! Yeah!' what the fudge is that all about?!<br /><br />The characters try to analyse their lifestyle but when their lifestyle is so shallow their analysis becomes boring and repetitious.<br /><br />The soundtrack (for a movie that is trying to be cool) is pathetic. It includes the likes of Fat Boy Slim and CJ Bolland come on people good dance music IS be better than this!<br /><br />The characters become grating and annoying (especially half way through the movie) and the lack of care-for-the-characters soon dawns.<br /><br />There are a couple of funny scenes but they are few and far between. The mother catching the son in the bedroom was quite amusing.<br /><br />But PLEASE I'm sick to death of the Star Wars analogy scenes. I thought it was much more sharper in a couple of Kevin Smith's movies (ie: Clerks and Chasing Amy). According to the characters Yoda is a drug fiend hence that's why he is short and bald huh?!<br /><br />My score 4 out of 10 do yourself a favour and see Trainspotting or Go instead! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2379 | pending | 4c209d8c-7e62-447c-8210-a13ba9174c9b | Saboteur was one of the few Hitchcocks I had yet to discover and I was less than half-overwhelmed. The French title "La Cinquième colonne" (i.e. The Fifth Column, a very evocative phrase for underground spying and sabotage organizations) set my expectations quite high as did the images of the finale on top of the Statue of Liberty.<br /><br />Basically Saboteur is as much light-hearted as were The 39 steps (note this is another evocative phrase, even McGuffin as a title) but it lacks most of the humor (so the characters are rather down to earth) and it's definitely not as fast paced. As a chase movie across the USA from LA to NY Saboteur drags its feet from sequence to sequence. The sequence at the villain's lovely ranch? Lovely ranch, lovely villain but pretty tame on the whole, it doesn't really add up to nothing. The meeting with the blind man, the mixing with Circus people, the Soda City sequence, the NY ball sequence? They fall flat, bringing in more characters with very little added suspense value.<br /><br />One big problem I can point out is the relationship between the leads Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane which is not building up as with Robert Donat and Madeleine Caroll in The 39 steps. Hence the whole narrative structure is floating, depending on the addition of new scenes. And new scenes only bring us nearer the end since it's not clear if the hook is the hero's escape from the police, from the villains or his action to stop the plotted sabotages. In The 39 steps it was clearly scripted as 1/escaping from the police (so you know the hero can't just go to the police) then 2/running for his life and after the villains to prove his innocence.<br /><br />If you want a better Hitchcock from the 40s wartime propaganda I would advise you to chose Foreign Correspondant over Saboteur. They are both chase movies with a catchy finale, well really a gripping one and not just sightseeing in Foreign Correspondant as well as beautifully efficient scenes (the umbrella crowd, the tulip fields, the strange mills...). | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2380 | pending | 33a82d8d-2c3f-4ccc-ad78-dc69dcb32365 | Rarely will anyone deny that Hitchcock remains one of the most creative, inventive and prolific directors of all time, because he is arguably all of these things. It takes true genius to scare generations of film goers out of taking showers and wearing neck ties. Saboteur, however, is not creative or prolific at all. Rather, Hitchcock set out with the soul intention of creating a film to muster "American Pride," a certain call-to-arms, support-our-troops title which was a popular theme of the time. With that in mind, Hitchcock severely underplayed other important aspects of the film, including but not limited to a logical plot, characterization, believable dialog, and a fluent, running storyline. <br /><br />Typically Hitchcock does great with espionage films, only a few years earlier achieving cinematic greatness with The Foreign Corespondant and The 39 Steps, but seemingly lost his stride in creating Saboteur and merely recycled the same once-thrilling story lines both his previous excursions readily provided. Without going into any great depth here is a list of a few of this films major problems: <br /><br />1. Despite having his face plastered on every newspaper across America, the only person who recognizes Kane is blind.<br /><br />2. At the dinner party, Kane and Patricia don't want to run for the door because the bad guys might grab them and tell the party they were "gate crashers." Logically, what prevents the spies from grabbing them and saying this at any point during the evening? Besides, does anyone need to be reminded Kane is a wanted terrorist?<br /><br />3. Since when can a fan belt cut through handcuffs? <br /><br />4. Nobody recognizes him...his face is on EVERY NEWSPAPER!!! <br /><br />5. The spies catch up with Kane in the ghost town and assume he's the man Freeman sent to work with them...shouldn't't he have some sort of credentials? I know spies don't run around with name tags and photo IDs but a secret handshake maybe? <br /><br />6. Cop picks up Kane escaping from Freeman's house, still seems no one recognizes this guy.<br /><br />7. How exactly does the FBI come to believe Kane with no evidence? They don't even show Kane talking to the FBI, the scene simply fades in and we are forced to assume everything is now kosher.<br /><br />8. When the cops search the Carnival Caravan how do they know Kane is now with a woman? The blind man believed Kane's story thus logically would not have reported his daughter missing, kidnapped, or even more importantly running with Kane. Why does this movie not employ logic?<br /><br />This is a running list. The movie is not exciting, the plot makes no sense, and the world is full of people who willingly take wanted terrorists into their homes and cars everyday because its no big thing. Hitchcock fails miserably on this one. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2381 | pending | d84be4ee-bcf2-4a52-a4a1-bcb6446f5f6d | As I post this comment, IMDb currently rates Alfred Hitchcock's subpar Saboteur a 7.3/10. Personally, I rated it less than half that. Honestly, I can't tell how a movie this bad could've come from what is probably the most consistently good director I know of. I've seen about 10 other Hitch movies from the 30's-60's. Vertigo is thus far my hands down favorite while Saboteur is easily the worst. It's hard to believe that 7 years earlier Hitch used the very same formula in The 39 Steps far more competently. My recommendation would be to see that instead and avoid this like the plague. It's the only Hitchcock movie that I turned off before before the end and have no desire to go back and see the rest. If you must watch it, then rent or borrow. Don't make the mistake I did and buy the DVD on good faith earned through Notorious, Rebecca, Vertigo, Rear Window, etc. Even a master screws up sometimes, I guess.<br /><br />EDIT: Maybe I was a bit harder on this film than I should've been. It's certainly nowhere near Ed Wood or Manos or anything like that, but there's three reasons I feel I must rate it so low:<br /><br />1) The name "Hitchcock" brings with it certain expectations of quality. This film delivers on a few of them, but they're way overshadowed by the darn near non-sensical plotting.<br /><br />2) I want to compensate a bit for all the 8+ ratings this film is getting. Hitchcock is like the John Coltrane of directors. True fans will find reasons to consider anything by him a work of art, but the high rating on IMDb gives more casual movie enthusiasts like myself the impression that this movie is far better than it actually is. <br /><br />3) I spent $18 on this. Maybe if it'd cost me $5 or even $10 I'd probably be a bit less bitter. ;) | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2382 | pending | 965278eb-140f-45dc-a4f4-cd2163e5073d | Hitchcock is a great director. Ironically I mostly find his films a total waste of time to watch. I admire Hitchcok on a purely visual and technical level.<br /><br />First the positives. Hitchcock invented the notion of the probing camera. The curious eye that is able to withhold or search for information. It isn't exactly a new visual grammar but it was revolutionary then.<br /><br />Secondly, Hitchcock pretty much perfected the thriller and chase movie. He has an economical style and is always thinking of the audience. He gives them regular thrills, regular jolts of humour and regular shocks. In short, he anticipates the audience's base needs and plays them like a fiddle.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the base needs of a human being are mostly stupid. Food, sex, the thrill of danger and a little comedy. Hithcock caters for all these needs on screen, with the exception of food, which, judging from his size, he catered to off screen.<br /><br />It's this pandering to the audience that sabotages most of his films. A second downside is that most of Hitchcock's camera work and visual grammar are now common place. What keeps his films watchable are the simple economy of his tales, the intelligence of his camera work, and his skill at crafting tense action set pieces.<br /><br />So on to "Saboteur". This is a light-hearted romp in the vein of "The 39 Steps". It jumps from sequence to sequence, until it concludes at the typical Hitchcock final act set piece.<br /><br />On an emotional level, the relationship between the leads is not up to par with Robert Donat and Madeleine Caroll in "The 39 steps". Hence the whole story lacks a certain energy. The plot simply rumbles on like a machine, desperately depending on the addition of new scenes. And new scenes only bring us nearer the end, since it's not clear if the hook is the hero's escape from the police, from the villains or his action to stop the plotted sabotages.<br /><br />There are the usual Hitchcock logic flaws. For example, a guy with handcuffs frees himself using a car fan belt etc. (Why doesn't he just drive away in the car? Surely handcuffs aren't that restrictive? He's able to swim in them, after all!)<br /><br />If you want a better Hitchcock wartime propaganda flick from the 40's, I would advise you watch "Foreign Correspondant". They are both silly chase movies with a catchy finale, but "Foreign Correspondant" makes great use of umbrellas and tulips, something Spielberg rips off nicely in "Minority Report".<br /><br />7.5/10 - Some good set pieces. Beyond that, however, there's nothing much to sink your teeth into. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2383 | pending | 9890084d-484d-4d7d-ab82-1842b5d78083 | This movie was one of a handful that actually caused me pain. It might be enjoyed by anybody who thinks that it would be funny to see his/her mother in a crowded discotheque full of people half her age "inventing" some totally ridiculous dance in a completely misguided effort to be "hip" (in the parlance of that age). To see Ingrid Bergman stoop to such a pitiful performance on the disco dance floor was hard to watch. I was embarrassed.<br /><br />To make matters worse, the music in the disco was not realistic at all - it is the bogus idea of some Hollywood director about what pop music was like at the time. That is always a total embarrassment in most films of that era - the ersatz music is canned and bears only a painful, passing resemblance to the music that was actually popular in the 60's.<br /><br />Mathau is hopelessly miscast as some kind of ladies' man; he just looks lecherously grotesque. Hawn's wide-eyed innocence is just too silly. The handsome neighbor in her apartment is portrayed way too earnestly and seriously. He seems like a Brady kid who got lost in this farce. Painful, pitiful mess. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2384 | pending | b77e9db2-4b32-4272-8e73-e0b9c3a565a7 | Subspecies is set in Romania where two American college students Michele (Laura Mae Tate) & Lillian (Michelle McBride) arrive to study local folklore with the aid of local friend Mara (Irina Movila). There they rent rooms in a hotel & become curious about the mysterious ruins of a nearby castle, it turns out that a powerful & evil Vampire named Radu (Anders Hove) lives there who has stolen the Bloodstone from his father King Vladislav (Angus Scrimm). Radu takes a fancy to the three girls & starts drinking the blood of Mara & Lillian, meanwhile Michele falls for a guy named Stefan (Michael Watson) who just so happens to be Radu's brother. Michele & Stefan decide to team up & rid the world of the evil Radu...<br /><br />Directed by Ted Nicolaou this film seems to be quite highly regarded amongst genre fans & while it's not terrible I certainly wouldn't call it very good & I could't really see anything much to get excited about. Subspecies is a rather slow going film, not that much actually happens & while it does try to stay close to certain classic Vampire lore there's all this nonsense about a Bloodstone & some little monsters that grow from the tips of Radu's severed fingers for some reason. Subspecies could have been a half decent film if not for the fact that it's dull, I really can't remember that much about it, good or bad. The character's are alright but some f the dialogue is silly & there's a scene which bugged me near the start when the girls are at the castle ruins & one says they have to go because it's getting dark yet it's still clearly the middle of the day & very bright. There's also a scene where one of the American girls finds a coffin that hotel's attic & doesn't really seem that bothered by it, I am not being funny but is some bloke whose house I was staying at had a coffin in his attic I would be very, very worried if you know what I mean. I don't think I would ever want to watch it again, there's no real threat, the plot is weak that mixes classic Vampire themes with silly subplots & I was distinctly unmoved by it all. Not the worst film ever but hardly the best either.<br /><br />The film looks alright with nice locations & some local scenery although you feel the look is down to the budget rather than the makers attempt a authenticity. There's not much gore apart from a decapitation & some broken off finger tips. For no apparent reason the makers throw in some average looking stop-motion animated monsters that really don't do anything or have much significance to the story.<br /><br />Filmed on the cheap by Charles Band's Full Moon Entertainment production company in Bucharest in Romania, the production values are alright & better than many later day Band productions. The acting isn't great with many of the cast putting in below par performances while genre regular Angus Scrimm has a small cameo at the start. There's a little bit of style here on occasion with a few scene reminding heavily of the original Nosferatu (1922) in particular the bit showing Radu's shadow coming down the stair with his long claw like fingernails standing out.<br /><br />Subspecies is a film that many seem to like for reasons I don't quite see, I thought it was throughly average at best & overall rather dull. Followed by Bloodstone: Subspecies II (1993), Bloodlust: Subspecies III (1994), Subspecies 4: Bloodstorm (1998) & the spin0off film Vampire Journals (1997). | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2385 | pending | 58545b8a-5ffb-4453-b26f-ca24028223d4 | First of all, let me make it clear. This movie is a real piece of garbage, but although it is a real piece of garbage, it is an better piece of garbage than it could have been. It could have sucked big-time, but it doesn't...<br /><br />What this movie didn't have, was for example scary moments, good acting and a good script. It wasn't very entertaining either. But the movie had cool music, fancy locations and hot girls. It also works great as a Dracula spoof. (hope it was meant that way, although I really don't think so)<br /><br />The story focuses on three girls in Transylvania, awaking an ancient vampire, which then terrorizes and kills the girls, one by one. Sounds familiar? Yes, so it does!<br /><br />After reading through this, you may think that I should have given it a better vote. The reason I don't, is because I almost felt asleep at some points... | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2386 | pending | b36773b2-e1e0-446d-8d7a-228dab60c739 | regardless of what anyone says, its a b-movie, and the effects are poorly done.. if you're a vampire fanatic, I suppose it would be OK, not 10 out of 10, you others here cant sincerely mean that?. we are to view this as a movie, not read it as a book, so the effects and characters are important, as well as the story. The story are good, but it doesn't carry the film, no wonder it has a low rating over all. I write this because I chose to see this movie when I saw some good reviews here on IMDb, but got severely disappointed. don't get me wrong, I thought the blade movies was awesome, and loved the underworld movies, but this characters aren't close. the make up on the vampires is poorly done, and the effects are worse. this sucks. I might not have gotten so disappointed if I had not read reviews here that told me how great it was. the reviewers must have had something to do with the production company or something, seriously, if you think this is awesome, you don't care about acting or make up. this is better as a book. 3 out of 10 for an OK story.. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2387 | pending | d70c7174-0500-49e0-aaf7-4a4f7186be51 | <br /><br />A few years ago I bought a movie called The Cellar. I had heard that it was supposed to be a great movie, but it turned out that it was a flop and a B-Movie.<br /><br />The story is good, but there are no good effects in the movie. (Maybe they didn't have enough money for that on the budget???).<br /><br />If you choose to watch this movie be sure to watch it three times. The first, only and last time!!! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2388 | pending | df41b389-4401-4e71-9f1e-f28e500ac46c | "The Cellar" is an intolerably dull and overly child-friendly 80's cheese parade, directed by Kevin Tenney (creator of the much better films "Witchboard" and "Night of the Demons") and starring the incredibly untalented Patrick Kilpatrick, supposedly depicting a guy with feelings. The pacing is really slow, the plot feels far too familiar, the monster-effects are all but petrifying and the film opens and ends with tedious narrative ranting that somehow feels unrelated to the actual subject matter of the film. The voice-over keeps on nagging about wind and creatures riding on wind, but what the hell, there's no wind in the plot? Like so many 80's horror movies, "The Cellar" handles about cursed Indian landscapes and all-too-real mythical monsters hidden in basements and quagmires. Mance Cashen and his family move into a house build on what once was the home of Native Americans, but then white people came and turned the land into oil fields. Half of the script is wasted on explaining the origin of the monster, but I can easily summarize it for you: an ancient Indian witchdoctor summoned the creature (which looks like an over-sized paper-mâché rat) to annihilate the white people overflowing his land but he buried it again because, and I quote, the SOB kills Indians as well. Mance's hugely irritating son accidentally awakens the beast and naturally can't convince his parents about the big hungry rat in the cellar. The allegedly emotional family situation (daddy constantly wants his son to love him) is very pathetic and redundant and the film badly needed more bloodshed; kids' movie or not. The youthful hero (Chris Miller) is quite annoying, but we've definitely seen worse kid actors in the 80's. "The Cellar" is very much not recommended, unless of course you're a fan of cheesy and typically 80's monster designs. The big dodgy rat-thing is a real hoot to see. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2389 | pending | 11d362cc-110a-4773-8860-266dad1fb6bb | If you can get past the slow start and bad acting it's worth watching. The story line was pretty decent. The father had a wicked temper because he was unemployed and he hardly got to see his kid except in the summer because his ex-wife had custody of him. The father was very angry and frustrated the majority of the time. The monster in the story wasn't too scary. The movie breaks consistency of the monster being so incredibly strong. The one scene that the moviemakers do this in is one of the times when the kid is down in the cellar and the monster goes to attack him. When the monster goes to attack the kid his arm gets caught in a steel trap attached to a chain. The monster is about a foot away from the kid's face. Every other time throughout the movie the monster is strong enough to break through or tear down anything. Yet the steel trap and chain holds him back from getting the kid! More than likely the moviemakers did this for shock factor because no one wants to see one of the main characters die. Moviemakers just wanted to scare us into thinking it may be a possibility that the kid could die. Instead of breaking consistency, the moviemakers should have replaced the kid with someone who they could dispose of! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2390 | pending | ebbfdb47-40b8-4cee-b788-d94aaca39300 | Mediocre at best. Slow, but probably more entertaining to the younger viewers. A young boy(Chris Miller) is haunted by an Indian spirit and horrid monster in the cellar of his father's new home. Also in the cast are Patrick Kilpatrick, Suzanne Savoy and Ford Rainey. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2391 | pending | 7632d1b2-8e72-4f19-8065-a6514e9e5326 | I watched this film on Telly the other night and little did I know what a cringe-fest it would be...I knew it would be stupid but not this bad! This film exemplifies everything that is awful in Australian comedy. Apart from the most tedious, uninspired scenarios and characters I have ever come across (aside from those dubious French produced American tax break comedies!), most of the situations were boring, unbelievable, stereotypical and SO not funny just...terrible! <br /><br />One such scenario that really annoyed me was the nerds on the bus scene. From a screen writing perspective the writers used the most uninteresting - not to mention unbelievable - scenario to get these three stranded without their luggage...They are on the holiday of their lives and they're going to risk it all (including a $300 deposit, luggage and room) to exert their rights to dance on a bus? I mean, they're about half an hour away from their destination! At least they could have had the bus driver kick them off but, no they leave willingly cos 'they can't take it anymore!'and wreck their holiday...Anyway, I can't believe the writers didn't workshop this appalling scenario out. I think a ten year old could come up with 5 set-ups more clever, funny and believable.<br /><br />I can go on with many others - the really unimaginative stereotypical psychopath, the whole relationship with the angry jilted girlfriend and tag along virgin, the 'Wow Man! Out there goth girl' inhaling stuff on the train - EVERYTHING was just woeful! I cannot think of one redeeming feature of the this film except that maybe the third wheel nerd was kind of cute. Spoilt his career by appearing in this trash though! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2392 | pending | 20c32c04-74f8-46ea-a5e2-61d75ea768e9 | Schoolies is a pointless exercise... Go to Gold Coast, get drunk and have sex. Worthwhile ambitions maybe but not highly intellectual. The plot is a simple as a few sentences assigned to each character and nobody is helped by the cliches doled out here.<br /><br />Something that would help is the casting. Everybody looks too old. These characters are supposedly innocents embarking out on their own in faltering steps to adulthood yet they all look way too old to be believable in the role.<br /><br /> | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2393 | pending | 715c29c6-4054-4233-89b9-93592a062ad6 | To me this film is just a very very lame teen party movie with all the normal clichés and boring stereotyped characters (Nerds, Jocks, Popular girls, Sleezy guys, etc) but with an underlying anti drug/drinking theme. <br /><br />If you ever have the unfortunate chance of seeing this film, keep an eye out for all the references to responsibility and keeping it real (dunno how else to word it) I guess the only thing that'd make this film cool, would be if they TV playing it was on fire. That, or DVD it was on exploded...<br /><br />1 out of 10000 - Watch Animal House instead. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2394 | pending | a36249b1-5225-45b6-a5a2-594fbf55cb87 | Like most, I rented this after I heard the universal praise. And despite COUNTLESS bizarre, unexplainable moments along the way, I was very interested and entertained through 100 minutes of the film. Then the two women went to the "performance" late at night. The rest of movie (which is another 40 minutes by the way) is even WEIRDER than the first part AND completely contradict and dump on what I had already seen. Then the movie abruptly ends.<br /><br />Baffled, I wandered over to my computer to see if I could buy a clue as to what just happened. Nothing made sense, and I'm a pretty clever guy. None of these other user comments made sense, even when they say "SPOILERS." I still have no idea what they're saying. Someone's dream? Not real? Then what's the point of a 2 hour 30 minute movie if it's "not real?" Or is it real? I'm forced to make a choice. Either:<br /><br />[a] The movie is a work of genius on a MENSA level and I'm simply too stupid to understand it.<br /><br />[b] The movie is weird for weird's sake and just doesn't make sense. Everyone who loves it is trying to save face and pretend like they "get" it.<br /><br />I choose [b]. Screw you guys, I'm going home... | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2395 | pending | ec0ecd2b-868b-4902-982a-5c8905f96000 | If you are a pretentious person, it would sound like a good idea to brag about your intellectuality saying that you really like this movie.<br /><br />Otherwise, don't bother and better watch something good.<br /><br />This is the stereotypical movie for snobs. The plot line would be very silly if you could see it from beginning to end. It is just presented in a messed up way as an attempt to make it hard to understand and make the movie look intellectual.<br /><br />Mullholland Drive is not enjoyable to watch. You would very rarely understand anything the first time you see it. And if you do, you would most likely be disappointed because it is not a big deal. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2396 | pending | f7f850fb-8218-40f5-9015-a8e5d69bed00 | It´s a joke, right?! Lynch could not get produced this as a TV show. He was out of money, so what to do? Well, he received somehow some Dollars and "completed" the pilot and created this mess by just mixing everything together... How can anybody see a failed pilot for TV as an cinematic masterpiece?!<br /><br />And now everybody is guessing about the deeper meaning!? Well, wake up, there is none! Like in that other TV series by Lynch, what was the name again? Same procedure there. Build up a mystery and then come up with nothing. I guess Lynch will repeat this concept until people will realise, the emperor has no clothes. <br /><br />In Germany there is a comedian called Harpe Kerkerling. He dressed up as an opera singer and "performed" some new "art songs". Singing complete nonsense like this: <br /><br />"The wolf. The lamb. On the meadow. Hurrz!" <br /><br />It´s a classic now. <br /><br />Anyway, afterwards he discussed it with the audience. And they were talking seriously about the deeper meaning of the wolf / lamb relationship.<br /><br />You people giving this movie a rating of 8.0 in imdb.com, you people could be one of them. <br /><br />So let´s say it all together: "Hurrz!"<br /><br />0/10 Macaulay J. Connor | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2397 | pending | a147be37-31e9-42ae-917a-b5022189bb4a | I get the feeling a lot of people liked this movie (not all people, but a lot of them) because they don't want to admit they don't understand it. People of middling intelligence, if you will, who pretend to be ever so avant garde and trendy who think Lynch is a genius.<br /><br />Lynch, to me, is like Tarantino. They're both great, but neither one is the messiah as so many fanboys want to believe. No director can change the world, so chill out. And both make sucky flicks sometimes, it just happens. Everyone has a bad day. And clearly, since this movie was actually designed as a pilot first and then hack-jobbed into a feature film, it wasn't made with all the passion and forethought one should put into a movie. Face it, much of the movie is gibbering unintelligibility which cannot be understood. We can all make up meanings, Lynch may have his own view, but none of that matters. It was strewn about the screen incoherently. Admittedly, the first portion had the semblance of an intentionally convoluted passingly interesting story, but then it falters.<br /><br />The cowboy, the mysterious organization of men with their phonecalls, the lawyers... come on. I can almost picture David Lynch yelling cut, forcing the crew to gather around him and explaining to them all "Look how crazy and weird I am! Isn't it great?? It's so weird and crazy!" Weird and crazy works if it's a by-product of your style. However, it's pretentious and tired when you go out of your way to do nothing but that. It's like all those half assed Pulp Fiction throw backs that came out after Pulp Fiction. It's just not cool. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2398 | pending | 1ff48526-4612-417b-b9a2-b07ca04d8202 | Some directors take 2 and a half hours to tell a story, David Lynch takes 2 and a half hours to piece together scenes with "clues" and his trademark oddity, but there's never a story. No plot. No progression of the characters (unless you find revealed delusion a "progression"). It amazes me how anyone can call Lynch's garbage "art", but if beauty rests in the eye of the beholder, so be it. Lynch's movie and TV work in the 1980's came off as "avant garde" and "alternative", fine. 20 years later, work like "Mulholland Drive" comes off as a 2.5 hour David Lynch masturbation piece. It's embarrasing. I've finally seen the movie that takes my top spot as the worst ever. At least the people churning out "Godzilla" and "Rodan" weren't passing them off as "art". | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_2399 | pending | 4ff718f4-cedf-42bc-a08c-4d7ea69fd007 | How does David Lynch do it? Unlike the legions of thick-black-framed-glasses-wearing types and pretentious movie critics who praise his name, I just don't see how this guy keeps getting paid to make such tripe. How can Lynch sloppily cobble together leftover footage from a failed TV pilot into a nonsensical, poorly-acted mess & have critics rave about it & actually include it on Year's Best lists?<br /><br />I'm baffled. If you're looking for a good film noir, rent "Bound" instead. If you're looking for a good "puzzle" movie try "Memento." But beware of this over-hyped stinker unless your idea of a fun night is throwing away 2 1/2 hours of your life & $3.50 of your hard-earned cash. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
Subsets and Splits