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_7500 | pending | ac55d645-a00f-468a-9cad-76b1e7e97dce | When the opening shot is U.S. Marines seriously disrespecting the U.S. flag, a movie has a tough road ahead, but unfortunately it was downhill from there. There is a military adviser credited, who is also apparently a retired U.S. Marine, making it even more baffling that this incredible breach of protocol, and law, went unnoticed. Even more baffling is the way they simply glossed over how a Marine is reported KIA, then buried, in very short order, without the slightest explanation of how they identified the body, or if there even was a body. The U.S. government is still finding the missing from WWII, and it takes months to identify the remains. Military shot down remain MIA for months or years and are only declared KIA when the remains have been positively identified, or after years of red tape. Here we are expected to believe that it happens within a matter of days or weeks. Maybe this happens in Denmark, but not in the U.S. Clearly none of the people involved ever had the slightest involvement with, or respect for, the U.S. military.<br /><br />Beyond that, there are a number of other utterly laughable moments when characters come up with zingers out of nowhere. There must have been some really extended meetings between auteur and actors as they struggled to find their motivation for such hogwash. Having a script that worked might have helped, but this one seems to have been made up on the spot, working from Cliffs Notes. There's no way to know if the script was this awful originally, or if it was the auteur, or the middle-management kids at the studio who bear responsibility. Either way, this is an awful movie that should have never been made. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7501 | pending | 10a47a1a-b500-4f85-b2f3-ebfb327327bd | ... a recommendation! Gloria Grahame runs the kind of orphanage where discipline is imparted with a meat cleaver, orphans are hung on meat hooks to punish them and the bodies are kept in the deep freeze so that they can be brought out for when social services call. That the orphanage is strapped for cash we know because Gloria puts all the orphans to work, and also because there don't seem to be enough clothes to go round - especially for the older nubile female orphans (age range appears to be 12 - 30 ish). The new arrival, however, turns out to be more than a match for Gloria - and has indeed just taken out her own mother & mother's lover (in a witty claw hammer and arson opening scene). Predictably, Gloria ends up on a meat hook herself. This one was made for about tuppence but was/is a HUGE HUGE HUGE hit on the grindhouse circuit. My DVD cover promised "disturbing and politically incorrect scenes", and it sure wasn't lying. I believe it is regarded as the Citizen Kane of orphanage set torture porn movies. 4/10 | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7502 | pending | bf19be5a-4b6d-49fc-98e9-c33c025f3a82 | I saw this at a drive-in when I was 9. All I remember are a few scenes (the ones where the main character Elle is being chased by a guy in a mask) and being scared spitless. Seeing it now, my opinions have changed. It's a pathetic "horror" film about an ophanage run by Gloria Grahame (sad) and dealing with a young, talentless girl Elle who is sent there after her mother, the town tramp, was beaten to death with a hammer (graphically shown). The film has adolescents (actually actors in their 20s) being beaten, tortured, killed, starved, attacked with meat cleavers, raped etc etc. The brutal hammer murder is the opening scene and then it gets worse and worse. There is NOTHING to recommend about this crap. The plot is stupid, all the dialogue is bad and the acting...the less said the better. How did this sickie get by with a GP (now PG) rating? It would get an R now. Worthless. One last thing...a truly repulsive twist ending suggests incest! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7503 | pending | b01d4265-1d82-4336-94c4-b31ebca5f142 | This is what happens when you try to adapt a play from the theater. Look at the end of the picture, totally theatrical.<br /><br />With a reminiscent of Les liaisons dangereuses the final steam-less speech try to make us think that the whole (and deep) theme of this matter was the manhood. Who cares by this point? It was about manipulation. And so the audience feels after this movie has ended.<br /><br />Young directors: A play is told with the words more than actions. A film is the opposite most of the times.<br /><br />And I'm not talking about the gay theme, overly exploited without a point ('cause there's no explanation of this topic considering the so called "philosophic" or presumptuous basis) to the level that this film should have been called Grand Gay | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7504 | pending | 94c41caf-e838-41ce-92fc-239582f35002 | "Grande Ecole" is not an artful exploration of mixed sexuality but, if you're in need of it, a movie for an X-rated channel. Although I suspect there's nothing in this movie to spoil for a willing viewer, the plot is simply an excuse for male-to-female and male-to-male couplings set in the unconvincing context of a competition between a Parisian school for future CEOs and a major school for those seeking higher degrees in the liberal arts. There's likewise a frisson of cultural clash between high status and lower status French youth, plus a societal conflict involving native Frenchmen and Arab immigrants from North Africa. All that's missing is a female-to-female coupling, which could easily have been arranged with no more than a slight twist in the plot.<br /><br />The acting is at a somewhat higher level than in the usual pornographic movie -- but "Grande Ecole" is, to be blunt about it, no more than pornography with artistic aspirations. I'm not offended by the sex. It's just repetitive and, before long, boring. Where's the Hays Office when you really need it? | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7505 | pending | 51bd8058-ead4-4aa7-bed5-e3612cf3766a | This film was nothing more than exploitative gay cheesecake. It was not an "art" movie; just an excuse to show several gratuitous, exploitative, over-the-top scenes with extensive male genital nudity. There was a locker room scene involving over a dozen naked men. The camera zooms in on the men's asses and penises as they are portrayed for several minutes with their dicks in full screen view. There are several scenes in this film showing penis after penis. It gets redundant REAL fast and makes it impossible to take this film seriously. I was wondering if I was watching a Playgirl video by mistake. If these same scenes were filmed using women (ex: totally naked and showing their vaginas repeatedly) it would be quickly dismissed as just softcore porn and an excuse to show a lot of eye candy...which is all that this film is. Any artistic merit got flushed down the drain of the gay ghetto mentality. The themes of class distinction, homosexuality, longing-desire, etc. were simple and superficial; no more developed than what one would expect from a first year philosophy student. Just cut to the chase and rent a gay porn instead. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7506 | pending | 63758c36-15e6-4401-803b-b1cfdd3e5351 | I saw this film at the New Festival in New York. It was by far the worst film there. It's use of uncircumcised full frontal nudity and a wishy-washy script and direction that neither commits to a re-make of 'Maurice' nor decides it's a Neil LaBute flick, left me feeling 'Why would anyone ruin a perfectly good cast like this?'. It lacks irony and fills the vacuum with sentiment, which causes the times when the movie turns on itself to make you want to wipe your face as your mind and heart search for what could be going on in the film but isn't. I wish the director and editor had re-edited the film because maybe there's more story there that could be released from an otherwise unpleasant experience. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7507 | pending | 4ed548fb-a2bc-4e5c-b2ab-c9c5d3180199 | I saw Grande Ecole at its world premiere on the Rotterdam Film Festival. I had no idea what I was entering and if I'd had any idea I wouldn't have entered. This is the most pretentious film I've seen for a long time. It tries to be provocative, yet deep, with its full frontal homosexual sex scenes - it doesn't succeed! It's nothing but another bad excuse of showing naked persons on the big screen. 4/10 | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7508 | pending | 50ae4d4b-4741-470f-bb7b-11703f369d5f | Not a terrible film -- my 10 year old boy loved it, and he would be the target demographic, so I guess they hit the spot. Pretty dull for an adult though.<br /><br />Hard to relate to animated lego characters, even mod high-tech ones.<br /><br />I thought the choice of the three great virtues of the Bionicle world was a bit odd -- unity, duty, and destiny. Am I the only one who thinks those sound just a bit fascistic? Especially destiny. What about freedom, equality, justice, etc.?<br /><br />Oh well, it will sell Lego. Kind of dull for a movie, but not bad for a 74-minute advertisement. Could have been a lot worse. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7509 | pending | 4b84dff1-8b72-4f52-9309-99fd03df7410 | Antonio Margheriti, director of the enjoyably cheesy cult horror Cannibal Apocalypse, helms this Gothic-flavoured giallo starring gap-toothed 70s icon Jane Birkin (as well as her massive-conked French lover of the day, Serge Gainsbourg).<br /><br />Unfortunately, despite the inclusion of such treats as a tasty bi-sexual French teacher and a terribly unrealistic killer orangutan, Seven Deaths in the Cat's Eye ends up a dreary mess which is a struggle to endure.<br /><br />Pretty schoolgirl Corringa (Birkin) returns to her family's Scottish estate after many years away, only to discover that a maniac is murdering her relatives one by one. Using the whole array of 'spooky old house' tricks (hidden doorways, dark corridors, creepy graveyards, candlelit cobweb covered rooms), Margheriti cobbles together a confusing tale which at times promises supernatural goings-on, but ends up with a lame cop-out ending that is unimaginative in the extreme.<br /><br />'And where exactly does the cat fit in to all of this?', I hear you ask. Well, a rather pudgy moggy witnesses each murder thus justifying Margheriti's rather cool sounding title.<br /><br />'Gory, stylish fun' claims the DVD cover; 'Boring pile of dung' says I. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7510 | pending | af192998-9945-41d2-a328-398a6aebe64d | What can you say about a grainy, poorly filmed 16mm stag film, where the best and most attractive performer is a German Shepherd? Nothing that would be positive. Avoid this travesty at all costs. In any case, it would be difficult to find, since bestiality remains a taboo and illegal subject in the USA. I strongly suggest IMDb to re-visit their weighting formula for establishing ratings, since an 8.8 rating for this piece of fecal matter is absurd! I am, by no means, a prude and have spent many hours enjoying the classic porn movies of the 70's & 80's; but this is inferior product even by the looser standards of the (then illegal) stag loop. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7511 | pending | 2ae13366-8ad4-44e7-a418-bc5714cac10c | Linda Lovelace was the victim of a sadistic woman hater, Chuck Traynor. I don't understand how having sex with a dog (which is animal abuse, as well) can be found to be entertaining or funny. Linda Lovelace was a virtual prisoner who was coerced into making these films. I know some people will criticize this comment but I feel strongly that these types of films fuel the fire of hatred and further misogynistic feelings towards women. This society continues to portray women as sexual objects as opposed to human beings. We call ourselves "civilized" however I feel we have a long way to go before we can ever scratch the surface of being civilized. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7512 | pending | 20cfd02e-1449-43df-9d4c-2cef126c5f32 | THE ATTIC starts off well. The somewhat dreary story is helped greatly by the two main actors and there's a semblance of a character study going on here but the film goes downhill fast when Carrie Snodgress' character buys a monkey. Not one of those cute little monkeys. She buys a real big chimpanzee!!!<br /><br />This sudden plot device basically kills the movie. It's just not conceivable for a woman like the one Snodgress plays, who has a hard time doing anything because of her domineering father, for her to, out of the blue, buy a chimpanzee. I mean, come on! Forget about it! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7513 | pending | 5bf8ba5e-93c4-42b4-994f-f1391d45889b | Slow, odd film that drags and plods (I mean really PLODS) along to its disappointing climax. You may expect some sort of punchline at the end, but there is none. Both Milland and Snodgress give awkward performances; in fact, the film's weirdness may actually be the only thing it has going for it. The generally atmospheric score has some absurd parts (like the music that plays during the first appearance of a monkey), and there is a truly awful fantasy scene involving....a gorilla. (**) | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7514 | pending | 40e8588f-1a8f-47d8-bbbf-cc0433ec1b4e | Oh, I'm mostly not the kind of person to give a movie less than 5 points. Mostly, just because of the effort from actors and directors.<br /><br />3/10 for Keyman from me. If anyone thinks the main character (or whoever) deserves an Oscar, I deserve the Nobelprize for peace.<br /><br />Seriously. I can't believe this movie made it to Europe. The acting was horrible, the plot was awful and what about the '70's horror-music. Give me a break.<br /><br />"Popeye" eg. What about him? Why is he there, he has nothing to do with the movie.<br /><br />And what about the Keyman's talking. One time he can't say a decent word, the next time he's getting all talky-talk. He also nearly dies when he wakes up and some sunlight shines thru his bunker. But when he's walking down the street, the sunlight doesn't seem to do anything.<br /><br />Watch this movie only of you're on the edge of dying of boredom. I regret myself for not watching my roses grow, which are in anyway more entertaining than this piece of... | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7515 | pending | 2cae1ed0-a10d-47df-9260-de440f7c4b9d | No,I'm not a radical feminst bashing the hentai and yaoi genre,I just find it really boring and pointless.My god,I was MADE to watch this for initiation from some stupid punk and my my,even an MST3K movie has a storyline,not to mention that this HENTAI crap is what's giving Anime a bad name world-wide (watch out Sailor Moon!).Sadly,people don't realize that not all Anime(or any other Asian style) is sleazy porn.Death to the stereotype!!!<br /><br />*starts casting Ultima* | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7516 | pending | 5ecb9f6c-28c2-44ee-8978-552586874bb7 | before seeing this film, the 1998 version was my only experience of this dickens story. i didn't enjoy that film very much, but this 1974 adaptation moves on in a particulary tiresome fashion.<br /><br />the actors don't shine, the main couple michael york and sarah miles are especially wooden cases. the only character of real interest for me was anthony quayle's intelligent jaggers.<br /><br />the so called plot is ridiculous, but the story itself is a great one. it's a real lesson on how your distorted values and obsessive principles can destroy you. live with an open mind and don't care what other people say, you are what you are, if others can't take it, **** 'em. pip was told this early on, but he didn't listen.<br /><br />the girl adopted by the weird old lady reminded me a little of the old kaspar hauser story, not in that same horrible level, but in the way she molded the child to create the executor of her personal vendetta against the entire opposite sex she thought had deceived her. pip's childhood didn't appear much better. the ending didn't seem to fit the rest of the story's style. the sets looked cheap, and coming to imdb i'm not surprised to see that this was indeed a tv-movie (which i had no idea of when i borrowed it from the library).<br /><br />live and learn. so many good movies, so little time. that's why the reviews are here. so YOU wouldn't have to waste your time on this sort of movies.<br /><br />3/10 | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7517 | pending | 31300cb6-796c-4732-a03e-1003c883f462 | Everything about this movie is bad. everything. Ridiculous 80's haircuts. Ridiculous moustaches. Ridiculous action and fight scenes where you can actually see that the adversaries do not even hit each other. Bad, bad, bad 80's music. Repeated scenes of people running through woods. A bad guy with a silver plastic hand and silly hair. Stupid dialogue. The acting is nonexistant. Everything looks extremely cheap. This movie even surpasses "Plan 9 from outer space" in its utter badness.<br /><br />It's not "funny bad" it's just bad. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7518 | pending | 53875f2a-b06b-4e56-88c0-66c21cb6a2b1 | This Canadian "movie" is the worst ever! Stunningly amateurish. When the bad guys rob a boat, we see two women with machine guns and one of them says, with a very low voice, "We're robbing your ship!" She blinks and is totally shy! Very intimidating. ROTFLOL!!!<br /><br />The two karate chopping heroes are 40something year old, five feet tall twin brothers! They're really bad actors. In fact, everyone involved in this production is a non-actor.<br /><br />There are so many continuity mistakes in this cheap production that it's amazing. In one scene, the guys are wearing one type of swimsuit. In the following shot, they're wearing completely different swimsuits. <br /><br />Absolutely terrible! A must see for any fan of bad movies. I have it on VHS. It's very rare. I cherish it. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7519 | pending | e1cd3873-71c3-48e8-9f1b-48d5de5121e7 | I...I don't know where to begin. Dragon Hunt might just be the worst film in cinematic history. Even Anus Magilicutty was better than this, as it was intentionally bad. Showgirls? No, it had kitsch value and was technically a well made film. But Dragon Hunt takes the cake, and eats it, then vomits it back up and feeds it to a homeless man. It's that much of a travesty.<br /><br />The acting, if it can even be called that, is rough. It doesn't have the charm of improvised acting, so it must be scripted, but it's recited with an almost malicious tone of poor quality. Several lines were delivered in a way that shows the actors (or basically, those people on screen) either regretted being connected to this film or were thinking of a particularly humorous joke from Saturday Night Live, which they had watched prior to getting in front of the camera. I could write another three paragraphs on the quality of acting in this film, but you and I both don't want to hear it.<br /><br />The make-up and special effects (which, with most films, is the only good thing) was laughably bad. The antagonist, whose name is so ridiculous I can't remember it, has a Mohawk glued to the top of his head. Yeah, glued to his head. And you can tell it's glued on too, if you look at the spot where it meets his pockmarked skull you can see a plastic strip, not unlike the ones on fake eyelashes. Thankfully he's pretty much the only example of make-up no-nos in the film.<br /><br />There's also some terrible character development, to put it lightly. The women, who are strangely rough handled by the supposedly benevolent fugly brothers (and I mean, they are really pushed around), are not only ugly but...gasp...they don't know what they're doing! In one scene they turn on their apparent lovers, join up with the even uglier bad guy, and then snort some coke. Apparently they managed to get their hands on some really good cocaine, because they started shaking and laughing EVEN before all of it went up their nostrils. Great timing girls! Plus they wear some truly horrible stuff, clothes that belong solely in the late 80s and early 90s.<br /><br />Overall this movie, this film, this waste of film I should say, is also a waste of time. Watching it will hurt you, and will require the suspension of not only your belief, but also of your entire brain. If you want to get stoned with your friends and have some good laughs, see if you can get this film (you'll probably have to download it) otherwise, don't even think about it. Hope I was helpful. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7520 | pending | a9ce4fa7-7839-4332-8c23-7a7882ec6f21 | Why is it that Canada can turn out decent to good movies in every genre, other then action? I caught Dragon Hunt on TV the other day and it was like a train wreck. I just could not change the channel, it's sheer stupidity sapped my willpower. Its pretty telling that the cast IMDb "credits" with this monstrosity apparently never worked again.<br /><br />Bad acting, bad writing, bad narration, bad music, bad hair, bad cinematography. It just goes on and on. The movie really has nothing to recommend it. If you're looking for bad action films to enjoy by laughing out, there are a tonne of other films that won't require you to scorch out your retinas afterwards.<br /><br />I hope this film didn't get money from the government for financing, otherwise I'm never paying taxes again. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7521 | pending | 020b4e2d-1c37-448d-9153-53200c6a1b40 | This is by far the worst thing I have ever seen on film. My uncle's home movies have more talent in them then this piece of crap.<br /><br />The plot summary is basically that these twin kick boxers are playing some sick survival game with a man and his private army on some island. The man has a very cheap paper maché looking hand.<br /><br />The acting is atrocious in this movie. There are scene changes at the drop of the hat. For instance, for at least 30 seconds we see some guy humming a song to himself which adds NOTHING to the movie. This has the worst dialogue I have ever heard of in my life, I don't think this movie could get any worse then it already is. I would describe it as a want to be chuck Norris action film gone wrong. And I hate chuck Norris. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7522 | pending | 3dba1214-d1b0-46d9-9c49-13d5d6c8bd45 | You know, I was very surprised when watching this movie. It aired during the day once when i was sick, and having nothing else to do, I continued watching. This is by far the WORST MOVIE EVER! But to my surprise I kept watching. I sat there saying, this is terrible, but yet didn't change the channel because I was so amused at how bad it was. Maybe It was the guy that looked like Big tom from survivor or the dreadful moustaches and mohawks these characters had, that kept me watching. However, the girls weren't half bad, but if that's what you want, there is far better. Oh, and there's "NINJAS" and "PAJAMA BOYS!"<br /><br />So if you like ninja's, bad acting, hilarious(and terrible) dialogue, and two twins who are five feet tall and killing everything in their sight, then this movie is for you. It's so bad it's good. However, I just had to give it a 1 out of ten. I couldn't have put a 10 on it up there with Lord of the Rings.<br /><br />ENJOY!!!!!!!!! :) | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7523 | pending | 802279be-de3d-47f9-9945-f61ad33fc62a | I have seen this movie several times, it sure is one of the cheapest action flicks of the eighties. So, I think many viewers would definitely change the channel when they come across this one. But, if you are into great trash, "Dragon Hunt" is made for you. The main characters (the McNamara Twins) are sporting great moustaches and look so ridiculous in their camouflage dresses. One of the best scenes is when one of then gets shot in the leg and is still kicking his enemies into nirvana. This movie is really awful, but then again, it is a great party tape! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7524 | pending | 85c1c56a-1ec8-493f-8498-8c58a32eec31 | This movie started off great; the first 30 minutes are very funny and clever with some interesting characters. That's the good news. The bad news is that the film then gets too repetitive and then it gets downright stupid. <br /><br />What we wind up getting is a Santa Claus with "magical" powers with a lot of New Age baloney thrown in the mix. It's just ridiculous and hardly the kind of "Christmas movie" I would expect from Jim Varney's "Ernest."<br /><br />To be fair, it still had a decent amount of laughs and is profanity-free but just not a film I could recommend. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7525 | pending | 8363aabe-7303-4268-bc0c-75a1772d2c48 | 'Ernest Saves Christmas' is comedian Ernest's Christmas special film. In this film, Ernest has to find a successor to Santa Claus in order for Christmas to continue. Along the way, he meets a young girl who is a thief and who ends up stealing something very important of Santa's (I won't tell you what that is; you'll just have to watch the film for yourself). Like most Ernest films, there is a lot of slapstick humor involved.<br /><br />This film is probably one of Ernest's best films. It's funny, and it has some important lessons to learn regarding friendship and family and not being afraid to show love. It's not the best Christmas film around, but it is a good one to get you in the Christmas spirit. It's a little bit sad that the film is a little dated now. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7526 | pending | 72771da4-1a94-4883-9ed1-495489989fa3 | The first Robocop had a sense of cynical wit and a sick sense of violence. It was a fine line to walk, but Paul Verhoeven pulled it off and the film did so well, they made a sequel. How awful. (Possible Spoilers ahead - though anything that could spoil this is beyond me).<br /><br />Irvin Kershner is not the director for this type of film. He clearly did not understand the wit of the original and as a result the massive over-the-top senseless violence looks really bad - and worse is very distasteful. Even worse is the musical score. Leonard Rosenman was an old man from another era and the heroic, light music does not match the images on the screen at all! What was he scoring?! The Great American Hero?! Worst of all, he completely eliminated Robocop's theme from the first film, which was so memorable and perfect. Can you imagine a Superman film without John Williams' fanfare, or Indiana Jones, etc.? How could he do that?!!<br /><br />The plot is just a collection of ideas that don't gel. In beginning we see Robo "stalking" his old wife. Fine, good idea. But, they completely drop it after that. Then, there is this a stupid idea of the company reprogramming Robo to be nice. That's thrown in for 10 minutes and then is immediately dropped. Or, the silly idea that the repulsive 10 year old drug lord reminds Robo of his son - Once again, a weak motif that is shown briefly twice and dropped. This may work in a comic book, but not on film and Frank Miller was unfortunately too inexperienced at the time and threw every idea in along with the kitchen sink. It doesn't work as a whole.<br /><br />Some people here seem to be praising the corporate bashing in this film and the privatization of the police. That is the best part of the film that is consistent with the first. However, in the original, the old man was a tough business man out for a profit, but ultimately fair in the end. In this film, he is just pure evil in his lust for money and power. You can't just change characters like that for no reason. And Nancy Allen's character is useless in this film, whereas in the first she was essential to Robo's search for himself. She is as gratuitous as the violence in this film.<br /><br />And the violence, yes the violence. I enjoy many violent, bloody films when they serve purposes and are meant to tell a story. Irvin Kershner seems to get off on human beings being blown to bits, shot to pieces, children lusting for death and torture and peoples' desire for drugs. He doesn't know when to stop. Do we really need to see every last innocent bystander (even people trying to help others) get shot up???? It is inferred when we see the bad Robocop shooting repeatedly! Instead Mr. Kershner proves he has very little taste for this type of work and creates an abominable mess that is a terrible piece of pop art and worse, a disgusting message of violence for any young person watching this film.<br /><br />No, this film isn't meant to be message-y and I certainly don't watch Robocop movies or Alien or Predator movies for that reason. However, when you go too far and cross the line, much of what you do must be put into question. And as for this film, in the words of the evil kid drug dealer's last words as he dies, "It still sucks". | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7527 | pending | 9bc21456-8087-4444-8825-7590003e3d70 | I was a huge fan of the original Robocop.<br /><br />But to say I was disappointed by this first sequel would be an understatement.<br /><br />The problems are many.<br /><br />Glossy though the film may look there are plenty of bloopers on screen for all to see, wires, cameramen etc, something I find wholly unacceptable from someone of Irvin Kreshner's pedigree.<br /><br />Robocop has become a robot. There is no spark of humanity to be found in the character here. A true disappointment when one considers that his "soul" had returned by the end of the first movie. Here his attitude shows no human side and makes him hard to sympathise with.<br /><br />Caine is a poor villain. OK I know Boddiker from the first film was better than the average, mainly thanks to Kurtwood Smith's performance, but the usually solid Tom Noonan creates a character who you couldn't care less about one way or the other.<br /><br />What's happened to the Old Man????. I appreciate that he didn't get to where he is by being "nice" but the change in his character here is nothing short of dumbfounding. In the first movie it's made clear he despises Dick Jone's tactics and attitude and yet here he's no better than Jones. It makes no sense.<br /><br />Doctor Faxx is a poor replacement for Bob Morton's charismatic, if unpleasant, OCP resident genius.<br /><br />The action sequences, save the sequence where Murphy is stuck to the side of Caine's truck, are harsh and nasty and repel rather than entertain.<br /><br />And finally. What is with the musical score?. Don't tell me Poledouris couldn't have done it simply because he was working on Total Recall at the time. A series (TV or Movie) soundtrack is part of its personality. Part of its character. When you remove that it harms the familiarity of the characters we're watching. So it's bad enough but shame on Leonard Rosenman. His score here is lurid, camp and downright cringe worthy.<br /><br />The story has its moments to be fair. There's a lot of originality in here. But it tries too many new things to take in with one film. Hob is a well realised villain and the only truly dis likable "villian" in the move, Thumbs up to Gabriel Damon there.<br /><br />The final showdown between Robocop and Robocop 2 is fun as well.<br /><br />But for the vast majority of its overlong running time this is a serious disappointment. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7528 | pending | 5f0888f3-abc1-4c6c-95cb-e3ff93d35110 | For most people, RoboCop 3 is the film that really is the big disgrace for the Robo series. It has few fans, and most people hate it for it's shameless commercial PG-13 approach. Now, I'm not going to say that RoboCop 3 is any good. Frankly, it pretty much sucks. But as far as being a properly shot and executed film, it surpasses this piece of circuit chaos. Yes, the truth of the matter is that RoboCop 2 is the worst of two bad and unnecessary sequels to a near-masterpiece. So what if RoboCop 3 turns Robo into a cartoonish super hero in a ultra mainstream production for kids to enjoy - at least it's doing it openly. I don't know where RoboCop 2 begins and ends, I don't know what or whom it's about, I don't understand what's going on in it, I don't understand which jokes are deliberate and which aren't, I will go insane if I try to understand the characters, I see nothing of any value in anything anybody is saying, I can't believe anybody looked at the shooting script and figured it would work and I can't believe that Irvin Kirshner saw the finished result and figured that he liked what he see. He probably didn't by the way, neither Miller, nor Weller nor Allen did. It's not hard to see why.<br /><br />Now, RoboCop 2 has it's fans, I know this. Mostly they belong to this league of absolute anti-pretensions, dismissing anybody who expected any depth, or subject matter from the first film, as academic Roger Ebert Sith apprentices. It's just a lot of fun, a good piece of action and great entertainment, the argument goes. Yeah well, I guess if you just don't listen to what any of the characters are saying you could fool yourself that we might as well have Arnold in the suit instead of Weller. Don't get me wrong, I like a good action film, with pure entertainment value as it's only - most satisfying - virtue. But RoboCop 2, sir, ain't no such thing.<br /><br />Look at the first couple of scenes. This horrible actor makes Robo repeat that he's just a machine, and then goes into this operatic speech about how he could never be a man, where-after Murphy's wife (who's suing OCP for robot-stalkings) walks in out of the blue and have this sad little moment with him, and then is never heard of again! I surely would like to go in to this film scene by scene, because every one has these kind of absurdities in them. It's like a twelve year old fan boy has done the screenplay, the characters act totally random and first say this, then say that. OCP wants to stop crime with a new Robo, especially this drug called "nuke" but then it seems they really just want to become this big capitalist empire and control the entire city politics are abandoned I guess, understandable given the comic relief mayor, The villain (played by Tom Noonan, who did a better version of this in Last Action Hero and that's saying a lot) is an addict, but is still used for this machine. The woman behind it all has an agenda which is impossible to understand.<br /><br />Speaking of twelve year olds, this film has the infamous role of "Hub", this mad kid who swears and kills people, played by a child actor. I'm not going to be all moral about it, it's a free world and if you want a psycho kid in your action movie, go for it. I don't know how much of Frank Miller's original vision was put into this, but the credits at least acknowledge him as conceiver of the "story". And, if I zoom out, I could see this as being quite a cool character. It's grim for sure, to have a maniac killer kid but then again this is the world of RoboCop and who would be surprised? This whole business with the OCP trying to become this giant monopoly over everything, is properly dystopian and good as well. Also, the idea of RoboCop getting in touch with his wife and kid, having them embedded into the story somehow - would also be great, and as far as I can see a natural and logical step if they now had to make a RoboCop sequel.<br /><br />But, of course, these are just ideas. As many people have already said, the screenplay is 100% mess. The kid has one scene (the torture scene) where it's hinted that he in fact is just a stereotype messed up kid, and then we have this unimaginable scene where he is dying and gets all soft and friendly towards ol' tin head. Why doesn't he just take up his uzi and try to take him down with his last breath? Isn't that what his character would do? Does he give his life a little second thought there on his death bed? Not necessarily, given that his last words are "it sucks", so why? It really makes no sense, and this can be said about everybody, no everything, in this film. IS there a strike in the police force? IS RoboCop machine or man? What's the deal with turning Robo into this community service machine for 10 minutes? I mean, sure, it's pretty funny I wouldn't deny that. But why build it up, and then discard it? And why the hell is Allen so criminally underused? and what is it Weller has an obvious urge to express with his character and yeah, well, the threads are many and the mess is enormous.<br /><br />This review is just as messed up as the film. The only reason I give an extra star up there is because of the actors from the first film, I'm sure they had good intentions with it. I mean it's something somewhat stable, some kind of anchor in this sea of bad movie making. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7529 | pending | cee2323f-51d5-476e-99fa-edb0e633e30a | I recently picked up all three Robocop films in one box set, rather cheaply and the only reason I did this was for the special edition of the superb first one. I have seen Robocop 2 before but not for 17 years, the year it came out. I have never watched it since because I can still remember how disappointed I was when I discovered how appalling it really is. Its a complete mess really, it has all the signs of a troubled production with so many sub-plots going on at the same time. It has a very uneven tone also and it is also one of the nastiest films I have ever seen. I don't mind a little violence, the first one was incredibly violent but this one is just plain nasty. Also the SFX is terrible even for 1990, say hello to bad stop motion. Also having a drug dealing, cursing kid as a villain is just a little too much. Peter Weller at least had the common sense not to return for the next one. The only positive thing I can say for this film is it does have a couple of nice gags, like the thank you for not smoking one and the kiddie baseball team robbing an electrics store. To quote the kid who plays the villain "It sucks" | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7530 | pending | 58cc6bed-aee5-41a3-afee-14b5500c5dec | I really don't understand who this movie is aimed at. From just the absurdity of it, not to mention the ridiculously bad acting, cheesy dialogue, and the fact that the villain is a child, I'd assume this was meant to be a children's movie... but I think there may be more swear words than Pulp Fiction, not to mention constant references to drugs and general mayhem and killing-so which demographic is it trying to please? This movie is too schizophrenic, like trying to combine Country music with Heavy metal, in the end no one is going to like it because it's a bloody paradox. I would recommend this movie because it's so funny (in a bad way) except the actors are so patently unbearable that I wouldn't want to suggest otherwise.<br /><br />I'm completely serious when I say that I could not watch more than 15 minutes of this. Terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiible | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7531 | pending | 6280115e-a327-4aaf-b9b1-b5e15eab40a8 | STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />Old Detroit is back, with the giant Omni Consumer Corporation continuing to swallow everything in it's path as construction of the new Delta City continues and a new menace to contend with in the shape of Cain, a cruel drug lord with delusions of Christ-likeness, peddling a deadly new addictive on the streets called nuke. As he continues to struggle with the memories of his former life haunting him, the tin plated hero sets out to bring this villain down- only to wind up getting chopped into pieces of scrap metal. With Robocop out of action, a ruthless OCP business-woman proposes plans for her new android- a stomping, snarling beast of a machine that needs an equally nasty test subject to power it- which Cain fits perfectly. After a brief glitch in his system, Robo returns to bring justice to the streets and settle the score with Cain.<br /><br />The original Robocop is a film that always manages to astound you each time you watch it, no matter how many times you've seen it, one of those films that just can't be done again. That said, it's not surprising a sequel was made- it's even less surprising that that sequel really pales compared to the original. Empire Strikes Back director Irvin Kirschner has crafted an unpleasant, slightly incoherent and overlong film that can't capture the magic of the first film, no matter how hard it tries. And it certainly does that, the funny ads from the first film running none stop, the corporate satire aiming to be that bit sharper and the action roaring as fast and furious as before, but with blood/gore even meaner than the first film. The first film earned a name for some nasty, blood-soaked violence (including a man's genitals being blown off and a man being blasted to pieces) but while that was more memorable the violence/gore on display here is of a more sadistic and gratuitous nature, with a very unpleasant and mean-spirited tone to it.<br /><br />But overall, the film leaves you with a feeling of general apathy- why are you watching this when you could be watching the original again instead? ** | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7532 | pending | 1875bdc5-3909-4837-acbc-f4b0ee81d352 | Violent sequel to RoboCop was directed by Irvin Kershner (Never Say Never Again, The Empire Strikes Back) will never be as good as the original, because it is almost humorless, and it is extremely mean, and should have been rated NC-17, because of scenes with infants being involved in gunfights, people threatening to brutally murder very young infants with REAL automatic weapons, and even scenes with a 12 year old using lots of explicit profanity, giving drugs to lots of random people, shooting and graphically shooting up and killing policemen and SWAT officers, opening fire on police officers when lots of small and young children are present, and a whole group of children using strong profanity and beating up the store owner (who is a very old man) of an electronics store and stealing and destroying lots of items there. This film gives new meaning to the term "appallingly mean", but the effects and action sequences are exceptionally incredible. Overall, an OK movie. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7533 | pending | 0695ae41-fdf4-47e8-a2e4-302a41364d8c | Unfortunately producers don't know when to leave well enough alone, or are into recycling to the point that every scrap of trash that Hollywood generates is up for rendering into Alpo. It seems that every sci-fi action adventure flick must endure a sad list of follow-up films, and Robocop is a tragic example. The first film, under Paul Verhoven's direction was a wild, stylish ride, even finding time for a little social commentary on what the dark side of bio-tech is capable of turning us into. This film has none of that, aside from maybe telling us that drugs are bad for you and could make you do things you'd regret when sober. Robocop 2 lacks the vision, the profoundly scary vision of what we are becoming, and instead clumsily takes us on a boat ride into how nauseating drug dealers and their victims really are. Social commentary be damned. This one really bit the big one for me. If you don't care for anything but the SFX, go to it, my friend. Otherwise don't waste your time with this yeastless sour cake, and preserve the first film's accurately measured, heavy-weighted pumpernickle hot out of the oven. It's that simple. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7534 | pending | c79ea3db-d13b-4a6c-9c3e-7c545b2fd223 | Following which, the touted update goes and shoots itself through the head. Rather apt, considering the sorry state of this movie, a sequel to a film which patently didn't need one.<br /><br />What really irritates about Robocop 2 is that the makers obviously didn't understand why the original was so good in the first place. Robocop (7) was a witty, vibrant satire of bad action movies. Robocop 2 is just a bad action movie.<br /><br />Thin on dialogue, particularly towards the tedious, shoot-out finale, it attracts little interest and possesses none of the energy or spirit of the original. The spoof ads, now a little tasteless ("Warning: continued use will cause skin cancer") seem merely there as an afterthought. And calling a new designer drug "Nuke" is nowhere near as subtle or as funny as the original's family board game, "Nuke em!"<br /><br />The stop-motion animation the weakest element of the original is used more extensively, while this humourless sequel fails to include a credits sequence, which makes it look even more cheap and hurried. Ah, humourless? You might say. But what about the funny mayor, or the way Robo is reprogrammed to spout platitudes? Yes, these are attempts at light relief, as is Robo tightening himself up with a screwdriver ("we're only human") for the film's punchline, but none are likely to induce laughter. Like the rest of the film, they're staid and moronic attempts at entertainment.<br /><br />The third and final film in the series (imaginatively titled Robocop 3; 5) saw Peter Weller leave, to be replaced by Robert John Burke, who does well in a undemanding role. With toned-down language and violence, it was an obvious plea to the kiddie market, a Robo action figure much plugged throughout. With it's social conscience too overstated, and Robocop's new-found arm attachments and jetpack getting too silly, the final film was never destined to be a masterpiece. Yet fluid direction by Fred Dekker and a flowing pace make this one enjoyably throwaway viewing.<br /><br />Robocop, then, is the film proper. Robocop 3 is the sequel which you could watch if there was nothing better on. Which leaves the second movie hanging in the middle, an unwatchable dirge of a picture. A franchise vehicle that has nothing to say, save for the pound signs that rung up. Irvin Kershner is no Paul Verhoven, just as comic artist Frank Miller and partner Walon Green aren't the writers that Edward Neumeier and Michael Miner were. A tragic waste of a good, if limited, concept. 4/10. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7535 | pending | ce624759-d866-475b-b341-2873b6a79e41 | It's a shame that they didn't trust the original enough to build on it. <br /><br />But "RoboCop 2" takes the great ideas, imagination and characters of the original and replaces them with all the stereotypes that sequels have to offer.<br /><br />The beginning commercial was cute and so was the scene that follows (reminiscent of the beginning in "Guys and Dolls"!) but aside from a flash of thought here and there, this is one film that is a slow, dirty slog down into the middle of nowhere.<br /><br />Ideas are introduced then dropped, interesting characters from the original hardly get any screen time here, most of the new characters (Cain, Juliette Faxx) are so boring that they wouldn't hold up no matter what the movie, and then there's the tone.<br /><br />In the Blessed Original, Paul Verhoeven knew how to direct with the kind of attitude where if you cranked up the attitude and the sensibility of a good pulp comic, even the most repellent violence would be entertaining. Kershner (although he DID direct a "Star Wars" sequel) doesn't. And scene after scene either makes you cringe, look away or just tune it out altogether.<br /><br />And what's with RoboCop?? HE should be the main thing here, right? But there's whole scenes where he doesn't even show up, and what scenes he is in are so half-thought and shakily written that you don't know or care if he's part-human or part-cyborg - since he's all-boring.<br /><br />Never have I seen such a rapid fall from grace. Why does Hollywood make such bad sequels? On purpose? Why; did the film-makers have a bet going?<br /><br />Only one star for "RoboCop 2"; the FX are good but the story doesn't even try to match them. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7536 | pending | b5605dd9-3190-4c97-956b-ba29c2b9aa07 | A pointless cash-in with nothing to contribute except nastiness, this is a definite case of sloppy seconds for Robocop. Irvin Kershner's numbing, plot less and tired mess of a sequel is watchable and even mildly entertaining in a dubious, unpleasantly trashy way, but it has virtually none of the original's flair, emotion, intelligence or excitement. Instead we have just another empty spectacle of a blockbuster whose only reason to exist seems to be to nauseate the viewer with relentless violence, which is far more brainlessly gratuitous than anything in the original. Omni Consumer Products, who made the original Robocop cyborg, have turned into more of a totalitarian force than ever second time round, what with the suspicious Nazi-esquire banners, stormtrooper guards and tanks for hire at the end; as for the anonymous Old Man (Daniel O' Herlihy), he's less of a benevolent protector and more of a hideous Mr. Burns type, surrounding himself with moronic lackeys who genuinely believe that putting the brain of a murderous psychopath into the body of the all-new Robocop 2 is a good idea. Oh, and the first Robocop gets a look in somewhere amidst all of this mess, though you wonder what on Earth a fine actor like Peter Weller saw in the script. The droll Tom Noonan has nothing to work with as the villain, while Nancy Allen is badly wasted as Robocop's partner. There are some hilarious moments throughout; the opening 'Magnavolt' commercial, for instance, but this is a poor follow-up to the truly great original. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7537 | pending | aac167eb-51fc-4dc4-98c1-6d29363b6eef | This movie is a fine example of what happens when a studio wants to get a sequel to a fine movie out of the gates at all cost. Only with this movie, it truly is a near miss. Everything seems in place for Robocop 2 to be a worthy followup to the groundbreaking first movie. The complete original cast (apart from the casualties, naturally) returns and gives it their best. Too bad a hackneyed script and an incompetent director as good as neutralize their efforts.<br /><br />Irvin Kershner might have been the ideal go to guy for George Lucas to direct the Empire Strikes Back. For a pedestrian filmmaker like Kershner there isn't much to ruin in Lucas' charmless film series. A worthy successor to a classic like Robocop would have needed either Paul Verhoeven to return, or a director with enough brass to give his own spin on it. Kershner doesn't know how to give his own spin on anything (Lucas hired him for that) and he's surely no Verhoeven.<br /><br />So what we get here is a movie that goes through all the motions to replicate the first movie, but with none of the freshness, humor or daring the original had. Kershner probably thought he could top Verhoeven by adding more gore and gratuitous violence, but instead he reveals how much he was at work as a director for hire instead of a passionate filmmaker. And that's a shame, since everything was in place to make this another classic. As mentioned the actors give it their best, but Phill Tippet delivers some groundbreaking stop motion effects and there are some great ideas in the story by Frank Miller, who was born to write a Robocop movie. If only the studio had hired a director who was competent enough to make all the potential come through. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7538 | pending | 19b71516-5850-4c91-93b9-981498c0b8b0 | This was okay, but really a bit disappointing because I expected more laughs. Considering the storyline and the lead actor (Bill Murray), it should have been a lot funnier than it turned out to be. Only part of this made me really laugh, such as when Murray lost control of his semi and was speeding down the road at a weird angle. (You have to see it, to appreciate it.)<br /><br />The supporting cast was anything but likable people. Just look at a sampling of the names: Matthew McConaughey, Janeane Garofalo and Linda Fiorentino. Yecch! McConaughey's role in here as "Tip Tucker" was just downright annoying. He was the worst. <br /><br />Other that those people, the movie had some charming moments but overall it is not recommended. It's another Disney flop. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7539 | pending | b2c1df81-652f-430a-bac0-47e5c5ec7634 | The over-riding problem with this film is that it can't possibly use Bill Murray to the best of his abilities, simply because of the co-star.<br /><br />If this was a road movie with another comedic actor, it might work. Even if they were both trying to get the elephant across the country, it would at least allow for them to share some amusing dialogue. As it stands, Murray is left talking to an elephant who cannot answer back with witty banter. Essentially, it means that Murray is talking to himself, and this makes the film more boring than it could have been had he had another character to bounce off.<br /><br />Kids would enjoy this movie,simply because of the elephant, but anyone wanting to watch Bill Murray's biting delivery and enjoy an excellent script needs to look somewhere else. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7540 | pending | 6e2d670b-50a8-4a89-8d51-40ea4a7df1c3 | LTL is the kind of formulaic, hopeless comedy to be enjoyed by the sort of sheep that stop and listen when they come across a band playing in a shopping mall.<br /><br />I remember Murray promoting LTL on Larry King's crappy CNN show, where he said something like "if this movie doesn't become a hit I'll stop making movies (or comedies)". He wasn't being nearly as jovial as one might think; he must have felt that LTL was a sure-fire hit and that its failure would mean his status as a star had markedly fallen - hence a sort-of ultimatum live-on-air to his fans to spend their hard-earned money on a dumb elephant comedy. (The comedy being dumb, not the elephant...) Or maybe he simply realized during the shooting (or when he saw the final cut) what a turkey this was, so he tried desperately to convince everyone how much optimism he had regarding LTL's quality. "Go see it, it really is good!" Actors are prostitutes inter-bred with car salesmen.<br /><br />LTL is the sort of lousy project that comes from the "Friends" school of comedy; their motto: "If you ever run out of ideas - or if you never had any in the first place - then stick an animal into the plot and that will at least inject an element of cuteness". Cuteness = a sad substitute for lack of funny gags. The other motto "Friends" had was: "always include pointless, dull sentimentality", which this movie so predictably ends with, when Murray rather pathetically says: "what they forgot to tell you is that you never forget an elephant". Maybe not an elephant, but I certainly managed to easily forget this turkey, which I saw many years ago. I was suddenly reminded of it when I saw a scene from it on TV today (hence this equally pointless review).<br /><br />Murray wastes his talent on this turkey (disguised as an elephant), but he isn't nearly as uninteresting/bad as McConaughey (or however that man's name is spelt); one would think that M.M. would have an easy time playing himself, i.e. a hick, but he is so painfully unfunny and unconvincing that I could barely stand to watch him make such a jackass out of himself. It was cringe-worthy. To round off this nonsense, we have that generation-X buffoon, Garofalo, in a rather useless role. Then again, everything about LTL is useless...<br /><br />After LTL, which bombed as far as I know, Murray went on to become more of a "serious actor". What is it with these comedians and their inferiority complex? Is it all just about getting awards, i.e. "recognition from their peers" (read: votes from their moron colleagues)? This piece of crap marked the end of a string of good and great movies Murray made in the early- and mid-90s, such as "Groundhog Day", "Quick Change", "Mad Dog & Glory", "Kingpin", "What about Bob?" and "Ed Wood". Recently we've had the immeasurable pleasure of seeing him in garbage/mediocrities such as "Hamlet", "Lost In Translation" (you just can't get away from these "ultra-talented Coppolas"), and "Broken Flowers". Compare those two batches.<br /><br />One guy described LTL "funny as heck". Now THAT'S the kind of audience this movie was hoping for... Shopping malls and trailer parks... | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7541 | pending | c2e9bf70-6241-48a3-a227-dafc10df637f | This *should* have been an amazingly funny movie...but it falls flat on its face. (In fact, I stopped watching it halfway through, which is something I rarely do...) -- Bill Murray plays Jack Corcoran, a second-rate motivational speaker who is bequeathed an elephant by his father (whom he had presumed to be dead before he was born) ; he then has one week to get the ponderous pachyderm across the country. His adventures on the way are only mildly amusing at best. Janeane Garofalo's considerable comedic talents go largely untapped. Anita Gillette is impressive in her small role as Jack's mother (who has a lot of explaining to do), and Pat Hingle stands out as a former circus associate of Jack's father. -- Perhaps the second half of the movie was better than the first, but I find that hard to believe... | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7542 | pending | 3fc6d314-84e2-4e7a-8fe5-57eff883ce3f | I have always liked Bill Murray in films like Lost in Translation, and the trailer for this film looked really good, but the result was very disappointing. Basically Murray plays Jack Corcorin who has recently found out that his father died, and he is expected to hear his will. He finds out that his father was a clown, because he left a large shoe, his squeaky nose, and his main inheritance, an elephant! The only way that Jack can get rid of this elephant is to travel 4000 miles in four days and give him to a safe zoo for $30,000. Also starring Pat Hingle as Vernon. There are small tiny moments of humour, such as a truck's front bending forward, and Murray screaming, but overall, it's pointless. Pretty poor! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7543 | pending | 359c2899-e5bf-4dc4-8dcb-f657fe75525f | Mainly a biography of a lustful doctor, "Robert Merivel ," (Robert Downey) who has his way in the king's palace for the first half of the film and then helps out the downtrodden in the second half, mainly "Katharine" (Meg Ryan).<br /><br />The GOOD - Fantastic set decoration (i.e. the lush king's palace) and costuming make this a visual treat. The language is also very tame. Ian McKellen and Hugh Grant provide interesting support.<br /><br />The BAD - After 50-60 minutes, this movie simply gets too boring. It desperately needed to be given some spark after an hour but it does the opposite: it drags on and on. The script certainly needed some badly-needed "restoration," shall we say? The film may look nice but it's a long two hours to sit through.....too long. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7544 | pending | 8a85e0f6-a1ff-49c1-86f6-575a0a47de9b | Robert Downey Jr. in a 17th century wig and dress was enough to make me shudder, but I couldn't believe a great actor like Sam Neill actually took a part in this movie. The whole thing was unbelievable. I especially like Merivel's "cure" for the crazies. They dance...and hey presto! everyone's happy and they're all better! I guess I just didn't like the character Merivel too much. Therefore, watching a whole movie about his supposed transition from a whoring buffoon into a great physician was grueling. <br /><br />Also, I'm not entirely sure, but I didn't think the plague as well as the famous fire of London took place simultaneously. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7545 | pending | 6a3c82c2-dbf2-4c0d-bcfd-6ad8772d50d9 | I really wanted to like this film. The second film in the series had this silly, drive in movie feel to it that was fun (of course, I was also drunk). I watched this film with the highest expectation of a similar experience of high cinematic hilarity, a-la- Mystery Science Theater 3000. I WAS WRONG!!!!! This movie is a god awful waste of film, and I LIKED THE SECOND ONE!!!! From the effeminate villain with the David Bowie fright wig, to the tacky, obnoxious female villains with laughs that could strip the paint off a garage door, this whole thing was just a painful mess. I actually felt bad for Sue Price, because the material was beneath an actress of her stature (that pretty much says it all). An awful, awful film (that's not a recommendation). | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7546 | pending | af451ada-4472-40d5-a2ca-4f4c1ae8e33e | This is going to be my first review on IMDb and I'm glad that the standard rating is 1 out of 10 because then I don't have to change anything...<br /><br />First there are awful movies. Movies you can make a laughter out of, like Island City, Battlefield Earth or Conan The Destroyer. That is totally acceptable. They makes a great party enhancer. Then there are the worst movie ever. I cannot believe how utterly crappy this steaming pile of dog turd was.<br /><br />I found it on a second hand store on VHS and bought it quickly because I like sci-fi, Terminator, post-apocalypse and stuff like that. Everything on the box art was very promising. Then I loaded in the tape quickly when I got home and the first thing that I noticed was... WHAT? There was maybe 10 minutes (or more) of switching between present clips and flashbacks in a very annoying blue effect, with sounds that makes you puke. And it just continues over and over. Then some "acting" kicks in and you wonder why you were ever born in a world, where this abomination of mankind actually exists... And then I realized, THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO PREQUELS. I didn't think about it first, but the title says "3" in it... And I was horrified. But as I actually in great pain and agony watch it to the end, I thought nothing could ever make me feel worse about myself and this universe... But then a little text showed up saying... "Next..." and... NEMESIS 4?!?!?! NO PLEASE NO!!!!!!!! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7547 | pending | 7f5c068d-a9c0-44f8-8f17-94f2549cc48b | I got this thing off the sci-fi shelf because I remembered seeing the first of the series when I was a kid. I'd rented the second one and it was a decent "B" sci-fi. This one was out right obnoxious. The "special" effects on the cars looked like something my 4 year old cousin could have done. The two assistant female cyborgs were so terrible that I literally cringed every time they came on the screen. The plot left so much to be desired that it made me sick. I don't know what anyone was thinking when they agreed to be a part of this movie but I'm sure that they'd have done better to have left it at 2 movies. The movies in this series are going from good to decent to terrible. I only hope that no terrorist groups have access to this movie as it makes an excellent torturing device. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7548 | pending | 78dd1dc8-8bd0-4dbf-b32f-438fa7ae17fe | Perhaps the worst of the "Nemesis" films (and that says A LOT!), this mess features so many flashbacks to part 2 that you might as well say that you've seen them both, even if you've only endured this entry. Making matters worse are two wisecracking cyborgs who have absolutely no entertainment value. In other words, they are a perfect fit for this endlessly boring cinematic mistake. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7549 | pending | 483a5346-538a-46ad-b833-4a4a5141083d | Nemesis 3 is the worst movie what I have ever seen!!! I think that Nemesis 3 was only 30 minutes long. And that movie was so boo-oo-ring. When that movie ends and I saw word: NEMESIS 4... I thought I will...NOT watch that movie never again. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7550 | pending | 75173c3d-1b13-4ddd-8a81-425d3bf14d1e | There's something about a movie that features female bodybuilders that gets me in front of the screen every time. <br /><br />I've seen "Pumping Iron II", "Aces: Iron Eagle III", "Raven Hawk", and even the TV movie "Getting Physical", which featured some big names in the sport. They were tolerable in their own ways (mostly, because they featured Rachel McLish. ROWWR!!).<br /><br />Then I went and watched "Nemesis III: Prey Harder", on the sole basis that it featured such luminaries as Sue Price, Debbie Muggli, Sharon Bruneau and Ursula Sarcev. Love the ladies, always will, but after this I'm kinda glad I missed the first two "Nemesis" flicks.<br /><br />Well, the first one, anyway. Most of the footage here is lifted bodily (and kicking and screaming, I would guess) from "Nemesis II". Actually, that one looked marginally entertaining from the evidence supplied here.<br /><br />But even though Price and company flex and pose, they don't get much of a chance to do anything else (like, say, ACT!). In fact, this whole film is an exercise (Get it? Ha-ha...) in oblique story-telling, ambiguous characters and open-ended movie-making (in terms of filming as well as the story-line). <br /><br />Nothing makes much sense but even if it did, there would still be issues - such as making such small parts for such larger-than-life women as these. What a crime.<br /><br />Of course, it was written and directed by Albert Pyun, so what did you expect: cohesion?<br /><br />One star only, in consideration for all the hard work that Price, Muggli, Bruneau and Sarcev obviously put into their bodies, NOT the "craft" work done within the movie itself.<br /><br />Thanks, ladies. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7551 | pending | 64d20fa3-cba3-498b-bf54-ec743c036acb | A plane carrying employees of a large biotech firm--including the CEO's daughter--goes down in thick forest in the Pacific Northwest. When the search and rescue mission is called off, the CEO, Harlan Knowles (Lance Henriksen), puts together a small ragtag group to execute their own search and rescue mission. But just what is Knowles searching for and trying to rescue, and just what is following and watching them in the woods? <br /><br />Oy, what a mess this film was! It was a shame, because for one, it stars Lance Henriksen, who is one of my favorite modern genre actors, and two, it could have easily been a decent film. It suffers from two major flaws, and they're probably both writer/director Jonas Quastel's fault--this film (which I'll be calling by its aka of Sasquatch) has just about the worst editing I've ever seen next to Alone in the Dark (2005), and Quastel's constant advice for the cast appears to have been, "Okay, let's try that again, but this time I want everyone to talk on top of each other, improvise non-sequiturs and generally try to be as annoying as possible".<br /><br />The potential was there. Despite the rip-off aspects (any material related to the plane crash was obviously trying to crib The Blair Witch Project (1999) and any material related to the titular monster was cribbing Predator (1987)), Ed Wood-like exposition and ridiculous dialogue, the plot had promise and potential for subtler and far less saccharine subtexts. The monster costume, once we actually get to see it, was more than sufficient for my tastes. The mixture of character types trudging through the woods could have been great if Quastel and fellow writer Chris Lanning would have turned down the stereotype notch from 11 to at least 5 and spent more time exploring their relationships. The monster's "lair" had some nice production design, specifically the corpse decorations ala a more primitive Jeepers Creepers (2001). If it had been edited well, there were some scenes with decent dialogue that could have easily been effective.<br /><br />But the most frightening thing about Sasquatch is the number of missteps made: For some reason, Quastel thinks it's a good idea to chop up dialogue scenes that occur within minutes of each other in real time so that instead we see a few lines of scene A, then a few lines of scene B, then back to A, back to B, and so on.<br /><br />For some reason, he thinks it's a good idea to use frequently use black screens in between snippets of dialogue, whether we need the idea of an unspecified amount of time passing between irrelevant comments or whether the irrelevant comments seem to be occurring one after the other in time anyway.<br /><br />For some reason, he doesn't care whether scenes were shot during the morning, afternoon, middle of the night, etc. He just cuts to them at random. For that matter, the scenes we're shown appear to be selected at random. Important events either never or barely appear, and we're stuck with far too many pointless scenes.<br /><br />For some reason, he left a scene about cave art in the film when it either needs more exposition to justify getting there, or it needs to just be cut out, because it's not that important (the monster's intelligence and "humanity" could have easily been shown in another way).<br /><br />For some reason, there is a whole character--Mary Mancini--left in the script even though she's superfluous.<br /><br />For some reason we suddenly go to a extremely soft-core porno scene, even though the motif is never repeated again.<br /><br />For some reason, characters keep calling Harlan Knowles "Mr. H", like they're stereotypes of Asian domestics.<br /><br />For some reason, Quastel insists on using the "Blurry Cam" and "Distorto-Cam" for the monster attack scenes, even though the costume doesn't look that bad, and it would have been much more effective to put in some fog, a subtle filter, or anything else other than bad cinematography.<br /><br />I could go on, but you get the idea.<br /><br />I really wanted to like this film better than I didI'm a Henriksen fan, I'm intrigued by the subject, I loved the setting, I love hiking and this is basically a hiking film on one level--but I just couldn't. Every time I thought it was "going to be better from this point until the end", Quastel made some other awful move. In the end, my score was a 3 out of 10. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7552 | pending | bc58c8ed-1556-49a3-a7d3-8e79d782ef9e | The original Airport (1970) was a classic of its kind, and the first two B-movie follow-ups (Airport 1975; Airport '77) were watchable fun at best, amusing camp at worst; but this crass and inept final entry lacks any entertainment value and displays a shocking contempt for its audience. It's unendurable and not even good for laughs. <br /><br />All of the three "Airport" sequels were theatrical releases made by Universal's television wing but this one is beneath even the modest standards of a TV movie of its day, with cheapjack production, grotesque casting, visual ugliness and tasteless, unfunny "comedy". The project was clearly doomed by the "creative" efforts of Universal executive Jennings Lang who personally produced and is given a "story" credit.<br /><br />Everyone starts somewhere, and writer Eric Roth (Forrest Gump) might have provided an element of self-burlesque, as had the previous films (especially the notorious Airport 1975), but there is nothing worth spoofing in Roth's turgid, incoherent script and even the comedy Airplane! left this crud untouched.<br /><br />What makes The Concorde: Airport '79 particularly offensive is its insulting misuse of professionals. The worst victim is the supremely gifted Cicily Tyson (Sounder; The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman), pitilessly reduced to a vomitous subplot involving her escorting a frozen heart transplant on the unfortunate flight. <br /><br />A special kick to the groin is reserved for the wonderful George Kennedy, who is the true lead despite being buried in the cast list. The official mascot of the "Airport" series and the only actor to appear in all four movies, Kennedy had more than earned the starring role and his turn in the Captain's seat would have been the only possible reason for this entry other than the squeezing of one last buck. Kennedy provides the only warmth and real humor in this mechanical muckup, briefly putting aside the bravura machismo and revealing a genuinely sweet and tender side to himself, and his lovable and heroic character of "Joe Patroni". Unfortunately we are never allowed to forget how fat and old and over-the-hill Kennedy is, and overage pretty-boy Alain Delon relentlessly calls him "Porky Pig" as part of a buddy-bonding that falls completely flat. Even Kennedy's Parisian romance, the only humane part of this plane-wreck, turns out to be merely a set-up for a hateful joke at Patroni's, Kennedy's, and the viewer's expense. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7553 | pending | 170d5fcb-fb1d-46df-b5ed-0c9477a1e0f4 | This movie is scary at times, perhaps no more so than when a naked George Kennedy tells his hooker girlfriend he wants a little more sugar. Thankfully his nakedness is covered by a blanket, but the image is still more horrifying than anything you're likely to find in, for example, Schindler's List.<br /><br />The dialog in this film was inspiring; it inspired me to watch another movie. In one scene, when a stewardess remarks about male pilots, Kennedy asks, "Why do you think it's called a 'cock' pit?" Charming.<br /><br />And yes, contrary to what some have written, this film is very, very bad. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7554 | pending | 5304ce2f-4a82-4268-b325-665f490c111b | All the Airport movies are stinkers, but this one is the biggest turkey of them all. The formula was different for this one because it focused on TWO disastrous flights and a lot of plot occurring on the ground, while the other movies focused on just one disastrous flight and less plot on the ground. The stunts with the Concorde are worth watching for the laughs, although the special effects aren't as terrible as I'd expect for a movie of this quality made in 1979. George Kennedy's sexist remarks are disgusting and his rendezvous with a prostitute in Paris is totally unnecessary (and made me gag a little). Poor Martha Raye was relegated to a role where she did nothing but relieve her bowel over and over in the Concorde's bathroom. There are no big stars in this movie compared to the previous films, giving you one more reason not to watch this one. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7555 | pending | 65e27e37-6ab0-494f-9b8f-bc3a0b8a948e | The real star of the last of the Airport films is that big supersonic carrier the French created called The Concorde. If you bear in mind that the whole film is dedicated to showing what that needle nosed plane could do in the sky, than the whole film kind of makes sense.<br /><br />But if you're expecting some serious drama here, than by all means take some of the evasive action the Concorde shows here when some nasty folks try to shoot her down.<br /><br />Susan Blakely plays a television news reporter who also happens to be the mistress of military industrial tycoon Robert Wagner. One of Wagner's aides just happens to bring her information on some of Wagner's dirty business dealings, selling arms to folks not friendly to the USA. When the source, Macon McCalman, is killed in front of her and she's nearly done in by a hit-man whom she escapes from of course she confronts Wagner with the information. And of course he denies it. But right before Blakely boards The Concorde, McCalman's widow Kathleen Maguire hands her the necessary documents. <br /><br />But on the way to Moscow with a stop in Paris, Wagner and his minions try to put the big bird down. But the fearless crew of Alain Delon, David Warner, and George Kennedy is up to all their tricks. It's quite a bag full as you'll see if you want to watch the film.<br /><br />If you're an aviation enthusiast, you absolutely won't care about the plot. It's like the film Le Mans with Steve McQueen which has a legion of auto racing fans who have made it a cult item. Maybe Le Mans is better at that because they just didn't bother with any kind of story.<br /><br />Among the passengers is a pot smoking saxophonist played by Jimmie Walker, a distraught mother accompanying a new heart for her child, played by Cicely Tyson and Martha Raye a woman with a weak bladder who spends the entire trip from Washington to Paris in the loo. She's actually the best one here.<br /><br />Robert Wagner must have been psychic though because I'm sure on the strength of this film he got the part of Doctor Evil's number two in the Austin Powers series.<br /><br />I'm sure all concerned got a big pay day out of this film, but it seems to have killed the Airport saga of movies. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7556 | pending | 97f7943b-8d1c-4fa3-b099-c21b4fda8d5f | "Oh, you pilots are such men." "They don't call it the cockpit for nothing, honey." Dialogue like that is just one of many reasons why The Concorde
Airport '79 (or, if you saw it in the UK where it dragged its heels getting released there, Airport '80: The Concorde) was the last and by far the least of the series. The disaster movie was in dire straits in the late70s, what with The Swarm having offered much unintentional hilarity and Beyond the Poseidon Adventure, When Time Ran Out and City on Fire simply offering much boredom, and the desperation to find a new spin on the genre is all too apparent here. This time it's a conspiracy plot, with Susan Blakely's news anchorwoman discovering billionaire boyfriend Robert Wagner has been selling arms to terrorists and the North Vietnamese. Naturally, she decides to tell him everything rather than make the story public, but, he fobs her off by explaining "I'm a very rich man. I have everything in life I could ever want. Why would I jeopardise that by doing something so incredibly stupid?" Just in case she doesn't buy that line, rather than, say hire a hit-man to kill her on the ground, he decides to do things the smart way by planning to destroy the Concorde while she's flying to Moscow via Paris. "I've done a lot of things I've been ashamed of, but I am not a murderer," he insists indignantly on his way to reprogramme a guided missile to destroy the plane. So, nothing incredibly stupid there. And when that fails, he sends a jet fighter after it. And when that fails
<br /><br />Don't even think of looking for anything resembling logic here: this is real bottom-of-the-barrel stuff that even the studio gave up on and marketed as a comedy in the US after critics laughed it off the screen. Where the previous three entries all had the look of glossy big-budget entertainments, this small-screen friendly effort (the only one not to be shot in 2.35:1 widescreen) doesn't even manage to make the Concorde look good, which is quite a feat. TV veteran David Lowell Rich presumably got the directing gig because he was fast, cheap and had previously directed TV movie SST: Disaster in the Sky where Peter Graves' supersonic airplane found itself unable to land due to sabotage and Senegalese flu (which was not, intentionally at least, a comedy despite the presence of a young Billy Crystal in the cast) and seemed like the natural choice for what looks like a $14m TV movie that somehow escaped into theatres when no-one was looking.<br /><br />Cast like a bad episode of Hollywood Squares, stars are in very short supply this time round, and most of the few vaguely familiar faces seem to have been rounded up from rehab clinics and busted sitcoms. Alain Delon gives the Hollywood career that one last shot as the pilot, "Happy Fish" (don't ask) George Kennedy moves from the executive suite to the co-pilot's seat in the hope of reminding people of the other movies, while the rest of the ensemble includes a couple of veterans of The Towering Inferno (Wagner and Blakely), a soft-porn star (Sylvia Kristel, trying to go respectable), an Ingmar Bergman regular (Bibi Andersson and she's the one playing the hooker!), David Warner's navigator on a diet having nightmares about being chased by bananas, the voice of the Devil (Mercedes McCambridge), Charo and her Seeing Eye Chihuahua ("Dohn miscon-screw me"), Martha Raye and her weak bladder, Jimmie Walker playing the sax in his seat and smoking weed in the john (in the few moments its not occupied by Martha Raye), Cicely Tyson kissing her credibility goodbye as the obligatory mother with critically ill child and a frozen heart in the overhead locker, airline owner Eddie Albert and trophy wife Sybil Danning occupying the best seat in the house, Ed Begley Jr in goggles, and the Russian Olympic team and their lovable coach Val Avery and his deaf daughter (ahhhh!) on a goodwill tour of the States (who knew about the boycott?). Just to add a touch of The Simpsons to proceedings, Harry Shearer voices one news report in the same tones he'd later use for Smithers.<br /><br />Highlight? Despite the impromptu wedding ceremony during a crash landing, it just has to be George Kennedy diverting a heat-seeking missile by opening the window, sticking his arm out (at nearly twice the speed of sound!) and firing a flare while the plane is upside down! And then Alain Delon turns off the engines so there won't be a "heat source" for the missiles to home in on
Yes, someone actually got paid for writing this, and that someone was future Oscar winner and screenwriter of Munich and The Insider Eric Roth (hey, everybody has to start somewhere), although in his defence it was producer Jennings Lang who came up with the plot. Still, what do you expect from a film that credits stunt balloonists and ends with a shot of the Concorde flying off into the sunset? Amazingly, in one of those won't admit defeat moments studios used to be prone to, Universal shot another 20 minutes or so of footage a couple of years later to include in the network TV showings (not included on the DVD). Sadly its box-office failure led to the fifth entry in the series, the laugh-riot that would have been Airport 1984: UFO, never getting off the ground. Even more genuinely tragically, it was the Concorde used in this film that crashed in France 21 years later.<br /><br />(Oh, and if you're wondering what Charo says to her Chihuahua in unsubtitled Spanish when it's not allowed on board, it's "What do you think? Don't worry. When the revolution comes, I promise you will fly on anything you want. I promise. What a shame, my love. What do they think they are?") | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7557 | pending | 25b73095-bbe3-434c-93ae-5d68afe5c092 | This is what happens when a franchise gets lazy, and no one can think of a new twist to add. Remember what happened to the "Childs Play" series? The first three were played as horror films, with genuine scares (albeit predictable) that held true to the theme of the movie. Then they ran out of folks for the doll to stalk, and decided to play it for laughs, with the next two being black comedies.....<br /><br />Well, that;s what happened here, but I think it was not meant to be like that. Kind of like saying, "I WANTED to make pancakes for dessert! I did this on purpose!" when your soufflé accidentally fizzles flat. But the milk was spilled, and it had some value in the theaters as a goof.<br /><br />When the floor ripped out from under the passenger seats, I sort of expected the passengers to extend their legs through the hole, start running Flintstones-Style, to safely land the plane in the Alps. I did. It would have fit into the silly campy theme of the rest of the show.<br /><br />Instead of pointing out the obvious physical impossibilities of the film, what about the social implausibilities? Like having George Kennedy's character react calmly to the news that his date was a whore? Even back in 1979, a man would not easily accept the notion that he has just poured his heart out to a paid companion. He supposedly felt he made a connection with a kindred spirit, who is subsequently shown to be a mercenary sex-worker with a come-on line. Who WOULDN'T feel cheated by the experience? And yet he giggles, and wraps his arms around his buddy's waist as they merrily stroll off. What a cheap wrap up of a sleazy scene. Ouch.<br /><br />I had an appetite for soufflé, and got served insipid cliché pancakes. And no, you did NOT do it on purpose! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7558 | pending | 4936c0f1-2ba6-4857-907f-8e9e2e2290d7 | The last of the "Airport" sequels. This has Alain Delon and George Kennedy (who was in all the Airport movies) as pilots; David Warner (!!!) as the radio engineer; Susan Blakely as a newswoman targeted for death; Robert Wagner as a brilliant scientist (stop laughing!); Eddie Albert as a president of the airlines; Charo in a dreadful "comical" bit; John Davidson as a newsman (love how his hair stays in place even AFTER the plane turns upside down!); poor Martha Raye is humiliated; Cicely Tyson plays a mother who is flying a heart for her dying son (stop rolling your eyes!); Jimmie Walker as a clarinet player (what did I say about not laughing?); Mercedes McCambridge as a Russian gymnastics coach (OK you can laugh at that one); Bibi Andresson as a hooker and Sylvia Kristel and Sybil Danning as love interests.<br /><br />Just pathetic. Full of stupid plots and dialogue that will have you roaring--watch for Davidson getting "married" on the plane near the end! The Concorde is taking all these people to Russia. They're attacked with missiles, escape, land safely in France and TAKE OFF AGAIN the very next day!!!! Don't you think the flight would have been cancelled or something? Most of the acting is terrible--McCambridge is a sight to behold in a red fright wig and a horrible fake accent. The only good acting is from Kennedy and Delon (looking fantastic) who gives a very engaging performance. Still that's not enough to make you sit through this drivel. Too long and lousy special effects too. This was a mega-bomb and (thankfully) stopped Universal from doing anymore. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7559 | pending | 2c3d3f1f-17cd-4b06-b100-9243ea0d3991 | Some slack might be cut this movie due to the fact that it was made in 1979. That much said, it really is pretty dire.<br /><br />Never mind the laughable back-projection or the awful, awful camera-tracking of supposed "in-flight" objects, it's the stunts that the Concorde pulls off that will have you blinking in disbelief at the absurdity. Barrel-rolls, loop-the-loops and violent "evasive" maneuvers left me wondering why the Air-Forces of the world didn't just fly Concordes as their main fighters.<br /><br />So, here are the important lessons I learned from this celluloid cheese-fest: <br /><br />1. The Concorde is at least as agile as a Phantom 4 jet-fighter.<br /><br />2. You can fire a flare gun at Mach 2 simply by opening the cockpit window and sticking your arm out.<br /><br />3. If the flare gun fails to discharge, do not drop it, as it may then go off.<br /><br />4. The Concorde can dodge up to two Sidewinder missiles fired at it at once.<br /><br />5. A flare will distract a heat-seeking missile every time.<br /><br />6. Switching off your jet-engines is a sure-fire way of throwing heat-seeking missiles off track if 5 (above) fails.<br /><br />7. When performing a crash-landing in the Concorde, it is apparently impossible to jettison your fuel beforehand.<br /><br />8. Concorde pilots are all combat-trained veterans.<br /><br />As you might imagine, this film is not very realistic. The effects are primitive by today's standards and that, coupled with the nonsense acrobatics the Concorde performs, makes this a movie deserving of little but scorn.<br /><br />Not recommended. Not recommended at all! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7560 | pending | 97666510-5112-4dc1-90c6-32adc315f609 | My Take: The silliest of the AIRPORT movies, and probably one of the worst of the 70's disaster movies.<br /><br />As if to milk the franchise with all its got, the producers of this third sequel to AIRPORT throws in more action, silly subplots, gratuitous star appearances and goofier elements. In its attempt to be the biggest AIRPORT yet, CONCORDE: AIRPORT '79 is the worst one yet, and probably one of the worst of the disaster movies of the 1970's. With its bad box-office results, it is no wonder that the genre has overstayed its welcome.<br /><br />The film opens with a rather catchy score by Lalo Schifrin backed-up by some impressive shots of the titular aircraft in its former glory (the same plane used in this film would be involved in a crash in July 2000). But then the credits appear, and we get a glimpse of the "all-star" cast, which is composed nothing more of faded Hollywood stars, TV actors and none-too-popular B actors. The plot is sillier than ever: George Kennedy is back in the role of Joe Patroni, now the pilot of the Concorde (co piloted by co-pilot Alain Delon) en route to France after the Summer Olympics. On board is reporter Maggie Whelan (Susan Blakely), who has just discovered that his boyfriend, renowned weapons manufacturer Kevin Harrison (Robert Wagner), is selling their weapons to terrorist. To prevent her from revealing the news to the world, Harrison sends his most advance missiles and best saboteurs to prevent the Concorde from landing.<br /><br />The cast/subplots are dumber than ever, even sillier than an alcoholic Myrna Loy or a singing nun. We have Cicely Tyson transporting a live human heart in a cooler (!), Martha Raye as a woman with a bladder condition (and the character doesn't go deeper than that), J.J. Walker a a pot-smoking saxophonist (arguably the most annoying character in the film), Eddie Albert married to "old" wife Sybil Danning, Avery Schreiber as Russian coach with a deaf daughter and finally, a love story between reporter Jon Davidson and gymnast Andrea Marcovici (much to the sour watching-eye of coach Mercedes McCambidge). Plus the movie gets much closer to LOVE BOAT episode than ever with the silliest cameos of Charo (and her pet Chihuahua) and Bibi Anderson. Camp buffs will no doubt get a real kick-in-the-balls in this silly entry in a long strain of 70's disaster movies. This one is, in more than the sense of the word, a true disaster.<br /><br />Rating: *1/2 out of 5. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7561 | pending | fa157216-53af-47b8-96ed-de82c7b615ae | I gave "Airport '79" only two stars because it's a truly lousy film. Nobody who had anything to do with it deserves any praise (except for Charo's Chihuahua, who does a pretty good job in his role.) This is not to say that the film isn't worth watching. It helps if you have a buzz on, but this is not essential.<br /><br />A'79 really does seem like an early version of "Airplane!" Every scene has a set-up and a payoff, and the scenes blunder after one another as if they were totally disconnected. One of my favorite recurring points is that the passengers, crew, and airplane get to keep going, no matter what. You're a news reporter and a strange guy gets murdered at your house in your presence? The hit-man then chases you onto your greenhouse roof? No problem. You can still catch that early-morning flight to Paris...no need to get the cops involved. Your plane dodges one unmanned "drone" missile, four heat-seeking missiles, and cannon fire from an unidentified Phantom fighter, doing barrel rolls, an unpowered dive, and a crash-net landing without thrust reversers in the process? No problem, we'll have the mechanics check the oil and get you on your way in just a few hours. It's truly funny.<br /><br />And I'll admit that there's a bit of the anarchist in me that comes out when the passengers pay no attention to the cabin attendants. The highlight is when the attendant tells Jimmie Walker he'll have to put away his saxophone (God spare me from a flight seated in front of a saxophonist playing jazz!) prior to take-off. Jimmie basically says, "Nope." Later in the flight, the sax is damaged during a barrel-roll and Jimmie actually shows up on the next leg of the flight with yet another sax that he won't put away. This aspect of the film is just fun. (ONE passenger actually obeys the attendant. When Charo is told she can't take her dog on the flight, she leaves the plane. Naturally, this is because you can't get a good view of her ass and boobs while she's seated.) <br /><br />In summary, a terrible movie, but terrible enough to be a bit amusing. Unfortunately, the filmmakers and cast deserve no credit whatsoever for this, as it was probably entirely unintentional. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7562 | pending | 8a232272-aff8-4799-9f6e-4ef137a1fed5 | WARNING **SPOILERS**<br /><br />Lord knows I have seen some bad movies in my time and this one makes me just as angry. This is an insult to people who ARE LOOKING for a bad movie. The "story" involves a stewardess who discovers her boyfriend (badly acted by otherwise great Robert Wagner) is a murder, thief, and just an overall puke face. After the Concorde takes off, he sends guided missiles to destroy the Concorde. So while the Concorde is traveling at the speed of light, our "hero" (played with utter stupidity, George Kennedy) opens the window in the cockpit then, sticks his hand OUT THE WINDOW to fire at the missile! I'm no rocket scientist, but it seems his hand would at least get a wind burn. Then towards the final "climax" when the Concorde is headed for certain disaster and everyone will die, a passenger turns to his fiance and proposes marriage. A Priest just happens to be sitting in the next row and proceeds to marry them as the planes is crashing! (I'm not making this up) Wow, the guy who wrote the script must have been sniffing glue for a week. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7563 | pending | c4f88577-0eee-43a4-a163-d52cea357f10 | This film is an absolute disgrace! I thoroughly enjoyed the original Airport, and I can't believe how the same people could produce this twaddle nine years on. First of all, the acting is bad. The original had actors who had done quality (non-disaster) films before, but this one uses actors who have done the disaster movie circuit already (Blakely, Kennedy, Wagner). Also, George Kennedy's character Patroni seems to get promoted very quickly. He is now the lead in the film, but his character isn't strong enough to carry it off: he has lost the charm and humour of Airport (1970), and the character is now just boring. Have I mentioned the plot? Is it at all believable that someone would send a missile after the Concorde?? NO!!! There are also too many loose ends; scenes that have no relevance whatsoever to the plot. The scene where the hot air balloon lands on the runway, the chase of the thief in Charles De Gaulle airport are two such scenes. Both would be interesting - if only they had something to do with the actual story. There also many unanswered questions: Why does Patroni open the window and fire a flare at the other plane? Why does Robert Wagner's character kill himself? (He must have another stupid and costly way of Why is there no enquiry after the missile almost blows up the Concorde? Why are the back projections so bad? (It looks as though a cartoon missile is following the Concorde; although it does work well when the plane lands in Paris) Why does Patroni think that he is in a flight simulator? (when he turns the Concorde over) Why does he get a hero's welcome in the cabin of the plane after having terrified the passengers? And why is the ending so poor, if it can be called an ending at all? Given their one-dimensional-ness, no-one seems to notice this. The blessing given to the young couple on the plane by the girl's coach is shmaltzy, the man who plays the saxophone is annoying, and the woman with the bladder problem is just plain silly. The scenes where Susan Blakely is lying on the roof of her conservatory, and the when she tells Wagner that she still loves him are quite awful. In conclusion, this film should have been the climax of the previous three Airport films: instead it is a diabolical, sub-moronic, complete and utter waste of time, money, energy, celluloid and "talent"!!!!!!! Remember when Patroni asks the French pilot if he has "ever landed on his belly?" This film certainly does the belly flop, and lands flat on its pointy nose... | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7564 | pending | 6a179698-61e2-4001-adf4-fe5592502883 | There is a special heaven reserved for people who make the world laugh. Alongside Chaplin,Stan and Ollie,The Marx Bros and.....(fill in your own special favourites)space must be made for everybody connected with "Airport 80 - Concorde,the movie". Robert Wagner in particular exceeds all expectations giving the comedy performance of a lifetime.I would never have thought he had it in him. The only way he could have been funnier would have been to have worn a red nose and a revolving bow tie. British moviegoers will recognise the fat one from Cannon and Ball pretending to be a Russian athlete,a nice trick if he could have pulled it off but,tragically,he couldn't.I have a 14 year old labrador more athletic and almost as funny. George Kennedy - bless him - has a part that requires him talk and move at the same time,and my goodness he triumphs!Brow wrinkled with effort he utters timeless dialogue,each word lovingly polished into Coward-like brilliance. Only once in twenty years does Hollywood turn out a film like "Airport 80".All the years of toil and struggle,the sweat,the tears,the lessons with Lee Strasberg,living out of suitcases,born in a trunk etc etc,all come to fruition.A work of art is created that will last as long as there are movies and machines to show them on. I think I'm ready for my medication now. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7565 | pending | c66dce9e-acca-482e-8dde-de42893e0b83 | The Concorde ... Airport '79 starts in Washington where a man named Carl Parker (Macon (McCalman) contacts high profile TV news reporter Maggie Whelan (Susan Blakely) in order to hand secret documents over that prove his boss Kevin Harriosn (Robert Wagner) owner & president of Harrison Industries that develop weapons for the military has been illegally selling said weapons to foreign countries. However Maggie sees Carl assassinated & she barely escapes with her life, Maggie is to catch the Concorde to Moscow via Paris the next morning & intends to blow the whistle on Harrison who also happens to be her boyfriend which would ruin him. Determined to save himself he reprogrammes his hi-tech 'Buzzard' homing missile to intercept & destroy the Concorde during a test run killing all those on-board & destroying the documented evidence...<br /><br />Renamed Airport '80 - The Concorde for it's cinema & initial home video releases because it was released here in, well, 1980 rather than 1979 this last entry in the Airport franchise was directed by David Lowell Rich & is a notoriously bad film that was apparently laughed at during press & test screenings prompting Universal to promote the film as an action comedy. The first thing to say is that The Concorde ... Airport '79 is a really silly & downright daft film but on a purely entertainment basis I can think of a lot worse films to spend 108 minutes watching, I really can. I quite liked the absurd plot about a wealthy industrialist wanting to kill his girlfriend TV reporter before she can expose him as an illegal arms dealer but this guy doesn't do subtle & decides the best way to do it is to blow Concorde up with his own guided missile & then gets a Fench fighter pilot to try & shoot it down before finally sabotaging it so really there's three mini disaster flicks in one here as each time super pilot Joe Patroni manages to save the day. You know Joe Patroni played by George Kennedy appears in all four Airport films & goes from mechanic in the first to Concorde pilot extrodinaire in this, also I reckon he's a bit of a jinx since in the space of nine years he has been involved with four major aviation disasters. I think the real reason why the Airport series stopped here was because Patroni retired after this & the jinx was lifted. Some of the things that happen here are just silly, Patroni does barrel rolls, flies upside-down & out manoeuvre's a guided missile in a huge Concorde not to mention he crash lands it & fires flare guns out of his window to destroy the missile all while keeping a calm head. This guy is good, very good. Then there's the character's, there's a Saxophone playing black dude who smokes weed in the toilets, an old woman with a bladder problem & a team of Russian gymnasts with bad accents. Also, despite being almost shot down with a missile & then attacked by a Jet fighter the passengers of Concorde don't seem that bothered & happily get back aboard the following day, I don't know about you but after that I would probably find a safer way to travel & why do the police or authorities not question anyone? Why is the Concorde captain Patroni allowed to just go off & sleep with a French prostitute? The Concorde ... Airport '79 certainly isn't boring & is full of memorable moments & I was entertained in a way although it's far from a good film & modern audiences may not have the patience with it, hell I liked it for what it was in a daft way but it's no sort of classic.<br /><br />Even though Concorde no longer flies it's still quite a cool looking air-plane & there's plenty of footage of it here, the one used in The Concorde ... Airport '79 was the seventh one built. This Concorde was also the same aircraft which crashed after a tire bust caused a fuel tank to rupture and the leaking fuel catch fire on July 25th 2000, while taking off in Paris sadly resulting in the death of 109 passengers and crew on board and 4 people on the ground. When this aired on TV in the US in 1982 almost twenty minutes of new footage was included with most if not all of it being newly shot over two years after the original production had finished. I know the effects here take a bashing from most but I don't reckon they are too bad, when you consider this was made in the late 70's I think they come across quite well. The camera moves during effects shots, real footage of real planes is used rather than toy models which in my opinion would have looked a lot worse & I could certainly see what the makers were trying to do with limited funds & limited technology. In a strange way they are quite impressive actually without ever looking that good if you know what I mean. Probably the most action packed of all the Airport films there's missiles, exploding planes, daring crash landings, assassinations & a guy named Robert Palmer (no, not the singer) giving head a woman in a jacuzzi.<br /><br />The IMDb says this had a budget of about $14,000,000 which is actually more than I thought, maybe those special effects aren't so impressive after all. Shot in Utah, Washington, Los Angeles & France. The acting isn't great here, people don't look worried enough that they are about to die. Goerge Kennedy gets some bad one-liners while Robert Wagner plays the bad guy.<br /><br />The Concorde ... Airport '79 is fun for bad film enthusiasts everywhere & to be brutally honest I rather watch this entertaining mess of a film than some two hour Oscar nominated bore. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7566 | pending | 71fe2020-4ad6-46e6-adb3-59a1c5eee006 | 'Airport 4' is basically a slopped together mess for Universal Studios to try and work a new twist - the Concorde supersonic airliner - into their 'disaster-in-the-sky' formula.<br /><br />Bogged down with unintentional humor, the best of which is when George Kennedy sticks his hand out of Concorde's window at supersonic speed to fire a flare gun at a heat-seeking missile following the aircraft's flight path, and the simple fact that these dumb passengers keep re-boarding the same plane to continue their flight despite all the problems in the air. Many stars in this one including Robert Wagner, Sylvia Kristel, Alain Delon, and Martha Raye as a nervous passenger. <br /><br />Not really related to the other 'Airport' films. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7567 | pending | 644eabd9-4da0-46c7-accd-25ee93ace3ad | Its a truly awful movie with a laughable storyline.some awful acting.and a script that Ed Wood might be ashamed of.Wagner is laughable in this. He plays his role like number two in Austin Powers.Easily the worst of the Airport movies.1 out of 10 | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7568 | pending | a262bf99-7c20-48e5-8ce0-9d9ab09bbcd4 | i just saw this movie on TNT and let me tell you, this movie was downright corny and cheezy. But after a certain point, I began to laugh my socks off and to tell you the truth, they should classify this movie as comedy rather than action/adventure. The absolutely most hilarious scene comes when the Delon and Kennedy are making loop the loop 360's to avoid the French missiles that Wagner ordered to destroy the Concorde. Our fearless leader, Kennedy, decides to shoot flares out the window to stop the heat seeking missiles????? Dumb yet funny---the kicker comes here though---after one shot, the flare gun malfunctions and Kennedy tries to fix it in the cockpit and well...if you want to know what happens get a hold of this movie. The dumb parts of this movie include the total lack of plot----yeah lets have some action for 25 minutes than land in Paris and go ONE HOUR with love scenes with prostitutes and flight attendants. Now lets switch to the saboteur for ten minutes then a wasted rest of the movie and a plane that is visually breaking apart and the PASSENGERS DON"T EVEN SEE IT???? ITS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR EYES!!!!-----final rating for this move--- (1/10) out of 4 stars if it were action 2 out of 4 stars if it were a comedy | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7569 | pending | 3cf7949d-0bb1-4a45-ae18-c2871604c647 | This final installment of the "Airport" franchise was so incredibly awful that it took me awhile to realize it actually wasn't a slapstick comedy, like "Airplane". George Kennedy shooting a flare gun out an open window to divert heat-seeking missiles was comical. What would happen to your hand if you held it out a window at mach two speed? You'd lose your grip on the gun and get a broken arm. The passengers were unintentionally hilarious, as was the interior of the plane. The sophisticated French woman coming on to slobby George Kennedy was like Jackie Kennedy coming on to Ernest Borgnine. Ain't gonna happen. Susan Blakely, a talented and unappreciated actress, did not get any points on her resume for this one. Neither did Robert Wagner. This movie was so lousy it seemed surreal. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7570 | pending | 3edff590-f1b6-4042-bdb4-89110b735b87 | Prior to Airport 79' these movies were rather good. They had decent special effects, all-star cast, and good acting. This movie destroyed the franchise, and there are many reasons for it. Lets talk about the special effects WOW!!!! they are horrific, what was the director thinking about. I know it's only 1979, but lets look at other very good special effects movies such as Star Wars(1977),and Moonraker(1979). I like the idea of the Concord and this could of been the best Airport movie, but they did too much with it. How about Joe Patroni(George Kennedey) shooting a flare out of the cockpit window, to prevent a heat seeking missile from hitting the concord. Also he is doing 90 degree dives and loops. This completely far fetched, and unrealistic WOW!!!!!! Believe me the special effects don't help this scene, and really are beyond poor.... They almost look like a cartoon, and this is how the whole movie is!!!Finally lets talk about the acting which in my opinion is extremely poor to fair at best.... Over acting is a major issue in this movie, especially George Kennedy.. Which I really like as an actor, but just doesn't cut in this movie. The full blame has to go on the director, who did a very poor editing job, and really whacked out the Airport Franchise. Too bad the Concord isn't still used today it was a marvel of Air travel... | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7571 | pending | 98c8d322-fbda-4a38-9e9a-d707293953d9 | The Concorde:Airport'79, Is for now, the last of the high drama high,camp Airport series, At first glance in the TV guide,or DVD cover you would simply think that the film your about to view is as thrilling as the previous Airport's Think Again! What your treated to is 2 hours And 3 Minutes worth of unintentional laughs courtesy of the worst script ever writing it was even penned by Eric Roth, Who brought the world 'Forrest Gump! well one things for sure the script is not Oscar worthy,It's Razzie worthy! The Executives at Universal in '79,done the right thing by marketing this as a 'comedy' Apart from Charo! the film does have an impressive cast list, It's certainly watchable to say the least, | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7572 | pending | 518fa722-7cd5-4b92-b000-644f295d99c4 | With a cast of mostly lesser-tiered stars (Alain Delon, Robert Wagner, Eddie Albert), lousy special effects (sure, it was the 70's but "Alien" and "Star Wars" came from the same decade), and a storyline that is so laughable that one might want to cry, this is a "flight" that should have been GROUNDED.<br /><br />Even Academy Award winners Cicely Tyson and George Kennedy can't keep this "bird" airborne.<br /><br />The implausibility of the third film - airplane is submerged in The Bermuda Triangle - is much more believable than this turkey.<br /><br />Avoid "The Concorde" at all costs! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7573 | pending | 7e12f2f0-dc03-4ab7-8f94-1bf85ae92b2b | Actually there was nothing funny about this monstrosity at all!! This movie was a complete abomination. The absurdities in this movie almost made me want to vomit!! I think that the people responsible for this movie took advantage of their viewing audience. They took a relatively decent series of movies (I did say decent, NOT GOOD!!) and totally trashed it by trying to put money in their pockets. The making of Airplane! was a way for Hollywood to make up for this crappy flick. The worst part about it is that either nobody in 1979 realized the asinine events of the movie (such as Concorde's door popping off at some ungodly high altitude or Patroni shooting a flair gun out the window at Mach 2 to avoid a NUCLEAR WARHEAD!?!?!?....what were they thinking???)were totally unrealistic or they just didn't care! I think that it is the latter of the two. The writers and director of this "film", if you want to call it that, really tried to suck the Airport dynasty dry with this crap! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7574 | pending | b2665486-a4be-42c7-9135-5a5fd8cb5486 | This movie has more goofs than any other movie I have seen in my life. The special effects are damned terrible. For instance, near the end, when the Concorde is falling after the cargo door tears off, the thing spins like a toy. The special effects of Airport (1970) are way better than this crap. Also, the force of a Concorde opening up at altitude and speed would essentially turn the thing inside-out. (That is if it would even open at all) But the movie has its good points. Mostly when it ends. That's also cheesy. E.g. The Thing lands on a bank of loosely-packed snow, if it did that, it would splinter into a million pieces. Overall, 2 out of 10. Instant flop. Great laugh flick. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7575 | pending | bcb5a39c-1475-4b54-ae7f-399b4cffdb4b | This film isn't a little bad. It's not even kind of bad. It's horrid. You know you're in trouble when Charo shows up in a film. She must have had the week off from "Love Boat." George Kennedy, at least he's a gamer - he's in there trying. Actually, he's all right. And it's good to see Martha Raye. Jimmie Walker's okay. There's slightly better acting than in Airport '75 but what film doesn't have better acting than Airport '75? One thing I liked about this film is that it had more going on than a lot of other disaster films plot-wise. At least they made an attempt at subplots. What really hurts this film is the special effects - ugh! Not too special if you ask me. This is the kind of film that at 2am is truly, truly funny if you've been up having fun with your buddies and you're looking for something to laugh at. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7576 | pending | ac3e0e3a-9ceb-42c7-8889-6bac9f49b97c | The Second Woman is about the story of a mysterious man who lost his wife in an accident and now believes that someone wants to do him harm. A girl who likes him wants to help him but she is led to believe that his fears are caused by a mental illness...<br /><br />Interesting plot, very good acting, but the result as a whole is poor in many ways. The story is too simplistic, or rather, presented in a simplistic way (even though there is a couple of interesting plot twists). For example, people say they love each other after only two meetings. I don't want to reveal anything else, but you 'll see what I mean if you watch the movie. "Come on, it was the fifties!", you may think. Yet I 've seen quite a few films from that era and I know that some don't seem so dated nowadays.<br /><br />Something that disturbed me was that some scenes were shot pitch dark, making it almost impossible to watch what was going on. Ok, it's a film-noir but this one is too noir at some points... :o)<br /><br />Overall, the Second Woman is not a masterpiece of that era, but no trash either. Watch it if you have nothing else to do... | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7577 | pending | e0cf4aec-462e-4eb9-94b1-9fd03f22e333 | (May contain spoilers) This movie is the epitome of weirdness. I rented it hoping for a film so bad it would be funny. However, I still honestly can't decide if this film was intended to be scary or humorous. It combines the emotions in a rather disturbing way. Apparently this is trying to be clever but in actual fact it isn't. For instance, when the knife comes out and tries to kill the teacher, it starts playing happy music. When we go to Toxico, we have up-beat, quasi-Mr. Roger's Neighborhood music. However, when the little kid's dreaming of falling in "blood" and when he finds the leg, these are clearly intended to be tense. So, watch this film, and decide for yourself. It is too weird to be described in words and for that I say, kudos.<br /><br />"Nose-dive... WOW!" | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7578 | pending | 8449dfb9-860c-4965-a27d-11b62f5d6c67 | I watched this film with a bunch of friends at a Halloween party last night. I got to say that the sarcastic comments were never ending and I have to say that they were well deserved. Though I felt that the directing was done well, the craziness in their dialogue is just a little too much cheese. I think I got about an hour into this before I even started to realize what it was the point was that they were trying to drive home. You catch on pretty quick that this whole family is pretty quirky and something is off about them, it's just a little too slow. This movie could easily have been about 45 minutes and been a lot better. The only thing that made it bearable was the two bottles of wine that I downed during the course of the flick. Bring on the slasher films folks, because at least I know what to expect out of them. This was not my thing, too much dark humour, and the subject material of cannibalism was a bit explicit and gross. I have to say that Randy Quaid played the part as well as it could have been, and I will give him props for that as I normally see him as a drunken goofball or a washed out fighter pilot who likes to kill aliens.<br /><br />In conclusion I give this horror/comedy film a very generous 3 out of 10. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7579 | pending | df91230c-0a82-4e15-a53e-3d7ed53fd1eb | Very disturbing, but expertly crafted & scripted and intelligently directed with a good eye for color and detail. Mary Beth Hurt, Sandy Dennis, and especially Randy Quaid are unusually good. The story centers around a young boy (Bryan Madorsky) wondering where all the leftovers they eat every night comes from. His parents (Hurt, Quaid) strange behavior causes the school psychiatrist (Dennis) to get involved. It is a gruesome cannibal movie. But it's not bad. If you like Hannibal, you'll love this. If you don't like Parents, stay away from the film. Just giving advice to Cannibal Lover and Haters.<br /><br />Rated R for Strong Adult Themes and Graphic Violence. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7580 | pending | f87188a3-9df9-40b7-9529-7b070863912c | When my parents rented this movie, I was expecting a very funny movie as Randy Quaid is very funny in comedy movies. However, this movie is not all that funny and it is somewhat boring too. You can see the surprise coming a mile away and it runs long for a movie that is supposedly only eighty one minutes long. So I can honestly say it is not a movie that is on my favorites list. It may work for some people, but it just did not work with me at all proving to be rather slow in the build-up with virtually nothing that amused me within the entire movie. Randy Quaid is wasted and the rest of the cast is a list of very bland actors and actresses. The premise of the movie had potential, as did the casting of Quaid, but all of it just sputters and the inclusion of the horror element just seems very unnecessary. Granted, the one dream sequence the kid had when he jumped on the bed and it suddenly became a whirlpool of blood was very nicely done and would have worked very well in a movie that was supposed to be pure horror, instead of one that lists comedy as its first genre. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7581 | pending | 465da712-30a5-440c-916f-d725ed19c1c9 | John Sayles, what have you done?<br /><br />"Silver City" had moments in which I could see the glimmering hope of a good story, well-drawn characters, thought provoking dialog. And then those moments would quickly be covered over by layers of poor writing, clumsy direction, and abysmal acting. I truly love almost all of John Sayles' work, but "Silver City" is ghastly.<br /><br />I got the feeling that Sayles may have been working on the beginnings of a good story involving the illegal labor and industrial corruption plot lines, but then he got rushed and stuck the secondary plot line satirizing the Bush administration onto it. The two stories don't really connect with each other, and the weaker elements of the political theme dominate the first 3/4 of the movie, causing me to lose patience with the whole affair.<br /><br />The other major flaw is Danny Huston's acting. His dialog in every scene is delivered with a gawping grin, regardless of its appropriateness to the mood. I hated this guy by the end of the film, having been reminded of every bad actor in every high school play I've ever seen. Not having seen Huston in anything else, I don't know whether to blame him or to blame Sayles' direction of him more. Regardless, he's the unfortunate focal point of a very unfortunate movie.<br /><br />Right down to the last sledgehammer-subtle final scene I was disappointed by "Silver City." Sayles at his best, or heck, even Sayles at mediocre, can be so very much better than this film. See ANY of his other works instead. This isn't even worth a rental. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7582 | pending | 51c025af-73a9-41e0-b3f0-1dbd7715061d | I don't really consider myself a conservative, so I wasn't personally offended by this film, but it was pretty clear that the plot and the characterization in this film were secondary to the message. And the message is that all conservatives are either evil or stupid (or both). The characters are one-dimensional -- either good, freedom-loving Americans, or brainless, greedy, evil conservatives. There's nothing clever or creative, just anti-conservative. I don't really mind the political bias itself, but it shouldn't be the only purpose behind the movie. And clearly it is.<br /><br />On the positive side, the cast is wonderful and Chris Cooper's impression of W is funny the first two or three times, but after that it's just the same old joke being told over and over again.<br /><br />So if you really hate the conservatives, you'll probably enjoy this film, but if you're looking for something with realistic characters and a story that's less black-and-white, then you'd be better off watching something else. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7583 | pending | ec99793a-66dc-4b11-8ce4-f81d814399df | Generally political messages are done on television, so if you are a big fan of environmental correctness, watch to your hearts content. Most people go to the movies to be entertained, not sold some poppycock political nonsense. The hook here is the big name cast. Unfortunately the sum of the performances equals a whole movie that went absolutely nowhere. The two best performances, Chris Cooper, and Richard Dreyfus, have minimal screen time. In short, "Silver City" is to be avoided as entertainment. It is nothing more than a non documentary, rambling political expose on illegal immigration, pollution, and any number of other causes that do not belong anywhere except on the small screen. - MERK | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7584 | pending | b32e145d-c662-479d-ae09-c4f737b458f8 | Honestly, one of the worst written, directed and acted movies I have ever seen. Seemed like a made-for-TV movie. And a bad one at that. I cannot believe that people are still hiring Danny Huston after seeing him in this movie, or that they are still allowing John Sayles to make films. My husband and I came across this movie on TV one night and got so bored with it, we ended up cleaning the house while it was on . . . and it still bored us! It made me think that critics have been so gullible with Sayles' previous films, such as Lone Star, which was raved about at he time but didn't really add up to much in the end. Spend your time on something better. Anything. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7585 | pending | 50418552-33c3-4880-a2ba-074a225ded99 | Apparently the film has a harsh anti-Bush message... If it does (I didn't get it), that's all it is. It's boring and useless, period.<br /><br />It's too serious at times to be a comedy, too slow to be a thriller, not funny, not gripping, not exciting, not film. It's too everything to be the opposite, and vise versa. I was amazed at how bad a film could suck. Don't even think of watching it.<br /><br />I have watched literally hundreds of films, and never have I been so obliged to write a warning on IMDb. Avoid at all costs. You have been warned.<br /><br />Even "The Making of..." is painfully boring. It's just people talking gibberish with loads of inside jokes infront of a camera, sort of like a home movie. There even is a part where a guy takes you on a tour of the food that was consumed on the set by the film crew. Still, beats the movie I guess... | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7586 | pending | deec5427-dd04-4e32-bd2e-6448d66d0473 | This movie was horrible and the only reason it was even made was because the story appealed to the far-left. I consider my self a moderate, so I was able to see this film as the pile of garbage it was. While I'm not a Bush fan, your dislike for GW is not enough of a reason to see this movie.<br /><br />To start, the movie was shot on such low-grade film that it comes off as cheap, rather then artsy. Additionally, the characters are seriously lacking in depth. Chris Cooper's character was a poor parody of George Bush; better suited for Saturday Night Live then a Dramatic film. The rest of the characters are walking clichés and are poor facsimiles of other characters from much better movies.<br /><br />Avoid this movie at all costs! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7587 | pending | f7bdf384-489b-4eef-baf2-8655a32188e1 | SILVER CITY (2+ outta 5 stars) As a huge fan of John Sayles' work for many years now I feel safe in saying that this is the worst movie he has ever done. That said, the movie isn't exactly *terrible*... just very uninspired. Sayles throws in familiar elements from his previous movies (corrupt politics, illegal immigration, the selling out of youthful ideals) but fails to bring them together in any new or meaningful way. Even the dialogue (usually Sayles' strong point) is disappointing this time around.. sounding clichéd and forced in almost every scene. The movie looks and sounds like episodes from a TV series that didn't make it past its third episode. There are tons of big stars on hand... and they try their best to make their bit parts come alive... but the material just isn't there this time around. While filming a campaign spot a governor-hopeful (a poor and obvious George W Bush stand-in) fishes a dead body out of a lake. An investigator is hired to try and warn away people who may have deliberately set this up to discredit the candidate... but he soon finds out that there are deeper and darker (and more clichéd) secrets to be discovered. Sayles has made similarly-themed movies so much better in the past ("Lone Star", "Matewan", "Return of the Secaucus Seven", "Men With Guns"). It's a shame that he went to the well one time too many and came up with tainted water. One good line, delivered by Richard Dreyfuss: "Danny, you're a loser. That's already been established beyond doubt. So just try and be a good one, okay?" | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7588 | pending | e13aa4a8-fe52-48d6-9d38-995d841f0dc0 | Sayles had a very interesting film on his hands with Silver City, however it somehow became very muddied as it progressed from beginning to end. Chris Cooper did an exceptional job embodying the essence of his character, a Dubya of sorts, but he wasn't nearly given enough screen time. Instead, we find ourselves on a rampage with a character that felt less personal, less developed, and overall too confusing. The path that this Danny Huston leads us on inevitably becomes the downfall of the film. Too many characters are introduced to us in such a short time. These characters randomly were involved with the progression of the plot, which became too convoluted with each passing minute. Sayles knew what he was creating, I just feel as if it wasn't being translated well to the silver screen.<br /><br />Sayles is a master of his trade. His films continue to inspire and evoke thought even if they are not commercial successes. The trouble with Silver City is that I think he found himself going too deep with not enough money or time to explain it all. At the beginning of the film, I had an idea of what was happening, but as more and more characters were introduced, as more and more plot twists tried to occur I lost the sense of the film by the ending. While the ending was very clever and very dark, I needed more explanation. I think some of the reason that I lost my train of thought with this film was due to the casting of Danny Huston as our guide. He was pathetic. I didn't seem him as very exciting person to lead us on this adventure. He seemed to go through the motions, but not really accomplish much at all. This was the first downfall of Sayles' important film.<br /><br />While I will admit that the characters played by Richard Dreyfuss, Miguel Ferrer, James Gammon, and Daryl Hannah were interesting, I just needed a better guide to help me understand their roles in this political scandal. Danny Huston just did not cut it for me. Outside of the characters, Sayles needed a stronger script. I sometimes felt that unless I was deeply rooted in the political world, some of the references were well over my head. The entire reasoning for Silver City to be built and the corruption behind it eluded me. I am a simpleton that loves advanced films, but this one just didn't make much sense to me. There were several times that I found myself asking, "Why" instead of seeing the whole picture. I felt as if the individual stories were as clear as glass, yet the whole picture was dusty and murky at the same time. Sayles needed to concentrate more on the bigger picture instead of these smaller issues, which ultimately fogged this film.<br /><br />Perhaps I went into this film with the wrong idea. I was expecting to see another version of Primary Colors, but instead witnessed something less heartfelt and more technical. Without giving the ending away, I thought that the final scene was one of the most beautiful moments in political cinema history. The brilliant symbolism has stayed in my mind for the past two days after watching this film, while the rest of the movie quickly shuffled away from my mind. Maybe a second viewing would do better for me, but for some odd reason Silver City just didn't click with me. There seemed to be too many loopholes that were never explained or accounted for. An ensemble piece is always good with me, but when the characters are introduced without explanation, it just looses steam. This was one of those rare occasions.<br /><br />Overall, I was very upset with this film. Being very Democrat, I wanted to see a side of politics that I wasn't aware of and another side that would make you chuckle. I wanted to be engulfed with the world of corporate money and the dufus' that are elected. I wanted intelligent humor framed by the words of George W., but instead all I found was a very confusing story aimed at a certain audience of which I will never be a part. Sad, this picture had so much wasted promise.<br /><br />Grade: ** out of ***** | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7589 | pending | 186f2f3f-d441-443d-891d-deb9a8e17d24 | I'm surprised over the number of folks that have rated this entry as their favorite "Chan" (didn't they ever see "...at the Opera" or "...at Treasure Island?"--- the latter ironically written by John Larkin, who dropped the ball here). This plot is a train wreck and overloaded with pointless characters. First, viewers are required to recall the sordid details of Steve McBirney's (played by venerable thug and HUAC squealer Marc Lawrence) 1929's murder spree. Let's not forget he escaped a capital murder rap at the courthouse with a lone policeman on his tail. There's also a victim that was fished out of a river 11 years earlier that no one ever seems concerned about. Then there's the suspension of disbelief required when all the characters are seemingly trapped in the wax museum (although Inspector O'Matthews manages to wield his fat wet rear end inside through a window). Why is Joan Valerie (as Cream's assistant) in this movie? She can't even handle pliers properly--- I realize Chan suffers the same boo-boo but yeesh, he's 66 years old here-- (and has less than 10 lines--- and her character's motivation is too weak to ever be adequately 'splained (excuse me, when I'm on a rant I write like Ricky Ricardo). The Mary Bolton (Marguerite Chapman) character is written to as a eager wide-eyed moron, apparently existing only for the vapid romantic interest of horndog lawyer Tom Agnew (played by the ferret-faced Ted Osborne). Why is Willie Fern a character? Why couldn't McBirney's henchman pulled the switch at 8:20? (not a spoiler, okay?!). One wonders how, with the IQ of lint he manages to dress himself or why he hadn't stepped in front of a bus years ago. Toler himself is given a little more acting rope than usual (a plus) and the real kudos go to set designer Thomas Little and cinematographer Virgil Miller who created some genuinely spooky atmosphere... but this entry has less logic than a Ritz Brothers film. I'm still boggled by how a toothpick can be used as a blow gun. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7590 | pending | 9e273181-4022-46a0-bbd2-d6423ff5ae46 | ... I am left with little choice but to employ it at least once during the course of my review of Respiro. Among other things, what defines pretension is in my opinion a lack of emotional sincerity on the author's part. Respiro seems made with an all too contrived and self-aware intent to be artistic, symbolic, spiritual, provocative, metaphorical... mythical, even. But luckily for all true artists out there, a predisposed formula to achieve artistic beauty and depth doesn't exist. Stunning natural locations (yes, these remote parts of Southern Italy look exotic even to most other Italians), pretty actors and some amusing, gutsy, spontaneous performances by a handful of attractive children won't elevate a substanceless movie beyond a pretty succession of images. Yet this insincere and vain, and ultimately hollow movie aches to be art, succeeding only to a very limited extent, perhaps in some cases by accident. I'll admit that the conceptually pompous ending does have a certain visual poetry to it. However, it's my belief that this was achieved in ways that had more to do with the beauty of the Lampedusa sea and the strong symbolic power of bathing and water (connecting it to so much that's mythical, mystical, religious, archetypical, etc) than with Crialese's talent.<br /><br />Valeria Golino is gratingly histrionic and affected in her performance as Grazia. For a mentally unstable woman from a humble and provincial background, she sure has a fashionable wardrobe. Her flattering, floaty floral dresses and attractive, sun-kissed beach hair could have graced the pages of any Vogue summer edition. The fact she was a "nutcase" could in a way have been nothing but a fashionable addition to her trendy demeanour and look - that's how skin-deep her "condition" seemed to me. Golino's two-dimensional stereotype of the innocent, natural child-woman misunderstood and oppressed by her backward community was tiresome and irritating at worse, while leaving me unmoved and indifferent at best. I agree with the reviewer from London who wrote that mental illness is very badly served by cinema - during the course of the entire movie we never really get a sense of Grazia's illness and have no idea what is actually wrong with her (other than her being a tiresome stereotype of a "free spirit"). We don't know why she's given injections and is required to see a specialist in Milan. This generic way of writing mental illness is one of the main tell-tale signs of the movie's overall shallowness.<br /><br />Another fairly insulting aspect of Respiro is the quaintification of its location. I struggled to figure out whether this movie was supposed to be set in the present day or the past, seeing as it aimed to make even an admittedly backward part of Italy (by comparison) seem a dozen times quainter and more conveniently primitive than it actually is. Again, this smacks of shallowness and a complete lack of sincerity on Crialese's part. Some non-Italian viewers will gleefully lap up the picturesque backwardness, the cliché of the possessive, macho Italian man as if it were common-place, so keen will they be to continue viewing my country as one culturally stranded sometime in the 1950s (the question I'd like to ask David Ferguson, the reviewer from Dallas, Texas is as follows: is YOUR country's mentality stuck in the 1950s? No? OK, then why should mine be?). Unfortunately for whoever still wishes to view Italy in such an anachronistic way, that aspect of Respiro is actually ridiculous and phoney even in the eyes of THIS Italian viewer. The subtly incestuous tension between Grazia and her eldest son was as tiresome and predictable as Fabrizio Bentivoglio's sexist-but-loving-husband routine. I especially loathed the scene in which Grazia joins her husband and male friend in some man-to-man banter over a bottle of beer, to her husband's macho embarrassment and displeasure. According to this movie, it isn't a woman's place to take part in a man's conversations. Ah, but our "loveable" "free-spirit" is too good for this place and doesn't understand the oppressive, unwritten rules of Lampedusan patriarchy! Not only does this scene depict something so fake, it should be enough on its own to discredit the entire movie's credibility. It also completely gets the wrong end of the stick of the culture it strives to depict, clearly showing that it was written without a clear understanding of the location or its population. I would challenge anyone who knows contemporary Italy to say otherwise.<br /><br />For a truly accomplished contemporary Italian filmmaker, one who in my opinion deserves to be listed among the greats of Italy's glorious cinematic past (which alas, isn't the shadow of its former self!), look no further than Gianni Amelio - especially Lamerica, Così Ridevano and his latest, La Stella Che Non C'è. Unlike most contemporary Italian cinema, sadly derivative and stagnant, Amelio's is a fresh and independently creative voice. Despite my scathing review of Respiro, I am now more than willing to believe that Crialese's latest Nuovomondo, now showing in Italian cinemas, will be a worthwhile one. I therefore look forwards to enjoying it, though it won't be overly shocking to me if I don't (considering my feelings for Respiro!). | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7591 | pending | 72a30f8e-e04d-48fe-be01-f3ea6aa9d0a3 | The synopsis of this movie led me to believe that it would be a story of an unconventional woman challenging the conventions of the society in with she lives. I like strong female characters and expected a movie much along the lines of "Chocolat" with a less fairy tale and more bite. What I got was a cast of despicable characters.<br /><br />For a character-driven movie to be effective, I need to feel a connection or compassion for the people. There was no one with whom I could relate in the movie. Grazia (Golino, whose work I admired in "Rain Man") portrays a mentally ill, probably bipolar, female that is often rude, aggressive and violent. Her husband bickers and yells, when he is not hitting or slapping someone. The children are rude brats. They yell at each other and the females in the movie. They attack other children with no provocation. Violence begets violence. This seems to be an island of unfeeling, aggressive, violent and rude people all the way around.<br /><br />The direction is not compelling. There are intermixed scenes that attempt to be art, but instead bore the viewer. The location is exceptionally gorgeous, but even that fails to be captured to the degree that it could be on film.<br /><br />I would have to recommend that you stay away from this failure of a movie. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7592 | pending | 463cbfad-5381-40c0-ab86-15f5eb8fe0dd | A lack of character development proves fatal for this movie. Valeria Golino's character Grazia starts out looking like a bipolar personality but quickly degenerates into a caricature and seems unreal. The other characters are thin, probably the writer's fault not the actors'. The only exception is Filippo Pucillo as the younger son Filippo: his energy and bravado are funny and convincing.<br /><br />I suppose the children's petty cruelty is supposed to contribute to an atmosphere of bleakness and emphasize the pervasive primal spirits in the town, but for me, the gratuitous cruelty is redundant and contributes to the overall boredom of the film. Some scenes were amusing but not necessarily intended that way, for example, when the mistreated dogs turn out to be fat and healthy and look like they are ready to show. The pretty cast and setting make for an appealing trailer but cannot carry the whole movie. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7593 | pending | 4eae60fa-4ff4-40df-847b-f9d0094cd402 | I'm sorry folks, but these enthusiastic reviews on this prestigious site about this movie "Respiro" are very strange, to say the least. Is craziness picturesque, I ask and didn't find an answer. Of course, the movie is beautifully filmed, at part it's almost a documentary. But then, the fact is that when it comes to the women Grazia, she shows every sign of a deep illness and I was wondering throughout the movie what the heck she has. Her behavior is absolutely worrisome and the (shocked) citizens of the village are very right indeed in wanting to send her off to a proper institution to see what can be done about her condition. She needs treatment, urgently! Behaviour like hers is inferno to everybody around her, her husband, the poor children (especially) and the fellow citizens. Let's not be falsely romantic about this! I hated this condoning portrait of a mentally ill. WHY, for God's sake, should the husband not want to have her cured or at least try to do this? Why the horror of going to Milan (a big city, sure, but lots of possibilities of capable persons to cure her)? Narrowmindedness? Irresponsibility? Anyway, I inspired myself on this site for renting the movie on DVD and after seeing it I HAD to post this for others to make themselves an opinion on it. Frankly, I understand why the movie did not get any further as an INDICATION to the Cannes selection... | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7594 | pending | 0fefe140-1da2-455b-829b-b5afa8306c2f | This could have been a breakout role for Valeria Golino but the film instead decided to shift its attention to another area. The film is about a woman named Grazia (Golino) who is married to a fisherman and the mother of three. She is a free spirit and prone to outbursts so the rest of the village and her family decide she should be sent to Milan and see a doctor. The story takes place on the island of Lampedusa off of Sicily and it shows the everyday life there with the teenage boys in rivaling gangs and just trying to find something to do on the sun baked rock. Grazia's oldest son Pasquale (Francesco Casisa) adores her and is always trying to protect her during her bouts of depression. The daughter Marinella (Veronica D'Agostino) is a blossoming young girl who becomes infatuated with a local policeman and the youngest son Filippo (Filippo Pucillo) is very sassy and mocks the policeman's accent. Upon learning that she is to be sent to Milan, Grazia runs away and Pasquale helps her by hiding her in a cave while everyone searches for her. This film could have really made more of an impact if it could have concentrated its focus to Grazia. We do see some outbursts and irrational behavior on her part but their is no follow up to these scenes. Nothing comes of it. The film looks great and is beautifully photographed so give director Emanuele Crialese credit for that but the story needed to focus on something more substantial. The film does a good job of showing us what life is like on this island and what is going on in the lives of the three children as they grow up. Their is some speculation that Golino's character gives a hint of being a mermaid like creature and that is why she is having difficulty existing on land. I also sense that the island itself expects its inhabitants to behave in a certain manner and if you don't then you can be subjected to the harsh realities of its rules. All speculations but I do think the films attention could have stayed with the character of Grazia. After she hides in the cave she really has nothing to do. In a sense, the character becomes stagnant. I wish Golino had more to do because I've always liked her and whenever she is onscreen you just can't take your eyes off her. She's a bundle of fury, passion and raw energy! What a shame Crialese didn't write a more complete role for her to act in. When the film ends your left feeling empty from an incomplete story. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7595 | pending | 6d2153d6-a283-4843-877b-9270e10af1c9 | To judge a movie just for the landscapes,decor,costumes....it is just not right , you are missing the core : THE STORY<br /><br />A movie has to narrate something , to tell a story something that impress you . Yes , I was pleased by the sea , cliffs , clear water and all that but ... There is the plot ?<br /><br />They are more interesting movies with mad people , such as : FLIGHT OVER THE CUCKOO"S NEST...etc...etc. This one is about a crazy woman who is more attached to dogs than his children or his husband. Just a clear psychiatric case !!!! Nothing extraordinary.Unfortunately a waste of time . And there is all that rage coming from ? Fish smell ? Sea ? | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7596 | pending | 3cfc34b5-794c-4dd4-8c8f-f3f1029173c3 | This is one of the worst movie I have ever seen. It's a thriller with a rather ridiculous ending. I watched this movie hoping for the best and instead found something truly bad. the movie starred two actors that I like very much, Rebecca DeMornay and Antonio Banderas. Sure they had decent chemistry together but for what? The movie's premise was bad to begin with and the execution just made it even worst.<br /><br />Miss DeMornay plays Sarah Taylor, a psychologist trying to analyze a convicted serial killer whose defense hinge on multiple personality disorder. That pretty much will give you a hint to where the movie is going and the identity of the killer. Early in the movie she gets an unexpected visit from her father. This being made in the 1990's when the bad daddy was the in thing in Hollywood is another clue to the ultimate conclusion.<br /><br />Mr. Banderas plays a mystery man named Tony Ramirez, who comes into Sarah's life. The whole first meeting and first encounter between Tony and Sarah is so badly done and so unconvincing it makes you wonder how it even got shot. And there's a sequence where the two of them are supposed to be knowing each other that is so sappy it doesn't seem to belong here. One thing that I would admit was that there was a sex scene that's very hot. Anyway creepy things start to happen after he arrives, weird packages arriving, things falling off the wall that could kill Sarah, incident that say things aren't normal anymore. <br /><br />Overall the movie was badly conceived, the editing at times seem jumpy, and the conclusion was laughable. Another thing that bugged me about this movie was the whole Orchestral music playing in the background. A more subtle musical score would have been better. I have to say this, no matter how bad the ending was, Miss DeMornay was very good in that sequence. It's sad that she never got first rate materials in her career. She's that rare combination of talent and beauty. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7597 | pending | d3cc2f1c-564d-423b-bf4e-8572f10893f2 | Man, is this lousy. It doesn't deserve much in the way of comment so, keeping it brief, Rebecca DeMornay is a highly disciplined police psychiatrist who falls for Latin Lover Antonio Banderas in a wine store, he of the ponytail and jail-house tats. When she cuts loose, she really cuts loose. Other than this torrid affair she's having (and we must admit the affair has its speed bumps) she's a pretty cold fish. Her broke, ailing father shows up for the first time in years and she boots him out. She's also adept at keeping her horny upstairs neighbor (Dennis Miller) at bay. And there's prisoner Harry Dean Stanton who's trying to maneuver her into giving him a diagnosis of multiple personality disorder so he won't have his privates nailed to the wall for the serial murders he's committed.<br /><br />All these people, and perhaps more, are immediately suspect when strange things begin happening to her. Somebody sends her dead flowers. Somebody does unspeakable things to her pet cat. (The next time I see a household pet turn up in a parcel or strung up in the closet or boiled in a pot, I'm going to puke.) So who's doing it? Guess. No power on earth could force me to reveal the ending, but maybe a hint will help: childhood abuse.<br /><br />The abuse excuse is an interesting business in itself, far more interesting than the movie. What does "childhood abuse" mean? Do we mean sexual abuse? Physical? Both? How about whacking a kid over the back with a wooden cooking spoon, hard enough to break it? That's what happened to me and my brother when we were kids, just as similar things happened to all the other errant boys in the neighborhood. Sexual abuse? That never happened to any of us, as far as I know, although I'm not sure it would have been rejected with any degree of animation. In the Samoan village I studied for two years, there was one case of an adolescent boy found playing sexually with a much younger girl. The girl's family beat hell out of him. The boy's own family sent him to live with another branch of the family in another village, an exile that lasted two years. By the time he returned the incident was forgotten by everyone, including the child. (By the way, the little girl we see here is under five so it's unlikely that she'd remember Dad's night-time visits in any case since long-term memory isn't really established until about that time.) DeMornay's experience leading to her mental disorder can be called "the social construction of trauma." It's not there unless we put it there. Enough of the psychiatric lecture. That will be fifteen cents.<br /><br />You want trauma? I'll give you trauma. The film absolutely forces us to identify with Rebecca DeMornay's character, right from the beginning. Then, when she has her first tryst with Antonio Banderas, and Pio Donnagio's score is pounding the eroticism into our heads, the camera gives us a shot from over her shoulder of the bare-torsoed Antonio crawling over us with his hairy chest. Now THAT'S traumatic. It makes any male viewer feel as if he's on the floor of the laundry room at the California Men's Colony in San Luis Obispo. Don't get me wrong. I don't dislike Antonio Banderas. It's just that I'm not in love with him. There aren't enough nude shots of Rebecca DeMornay's elfin body in the entire universe to compensate for that kind of anxiety.<br /><br />Here's an engaging way of surviving this movie. Instead of just sitting there puling, try picking out the scenes that were filmed in Toronto and separating them from the ones shot in Budapest. It's a challenge, really, and may, for all we know, preserve your sanity. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7598 | pending | 8a21b8b5-8f4a-4c39-a580-462c5f50a057 | Rebecca De Mornay can be a fascinating beautiful actress but as for the parts she's given to play,if you cannot say something nice...<br /><br />De Mornay portrays a woman who had terrible traumas as a child with a father she can hardly stand now that she's a grown up and has become a -of course brilliant- shrink.She has an affair with Banderas ,whom we suspect of being (ouch!how original!) a serial killer.Sometimes she recalls Banderas's mother-in-law Tippi Hedren's character in "Marnie" .But I wouldn't count on it:Hitchcock died twenty-four years ago ,and a lot of regents desperately try to replace him .Here the director pulls out all the stops to make a thriller with an unexpected end,but that ending is so far-fetched it is absolutely impossible to buy it.The movie includes the obligatory "conversations with a serial killer" in the "silence of the lamb" tradition,murders (human beings and cats),split personality,and open ending in case the crowds should call for more.Apparently they did not,and they were right. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7599 | pending | 2041215c-91a1-45cf-a131-5ba8e07a49d6 | Sorry I couldn't be more expressive in my summary, but those two words seemed to describe the movie perfectly. This is not only a bad film, but a bad film with bad acting and a plot that will be inconsequential to most watchers.<br /><br />See it only for a naked Rebecca De Mornay tied to a chain-link fence and moaning with 'ecstasy; supposedly 'erotic', but actually hilarious.<br /><br /> | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.