question
stringlengths 53
4.1k
| options
list | answer
stringclasses 2
values | label
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
I'm not a big fan of rom/coms at the best of times. A few have been quite good (check of Dream for an Insomniac), but this one is just more of the same but less.<br /><br />With a running time of 100min, I expect more than 1 laugh every 30mins. The only real belly laugh are when male strangers and friends instinctively help out Lee's character.<br /><br />All I can say is AVOID. I guarantee there is at least 10 other movies on the shelf that deserve you $$<br /><br />3 of out 10 (And only cos I'm a big Lee fan)
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
After the reasonably successful MASTI which was tad better Inder Kumar returned again with a comedy PYAARE MOHAN based on the Hollywood film SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL <br /><br />The film reminds you of HUM HAI KAMAAL KE(1994) where Kader and Anupam play the blind and deaf<br /><br />This movie is a tedious exercise<br /><br />The film has jokes of such nonsense that you don't feel like laughing like Snehal Dabi's head getting stuck in the back of the horse and all those type comedies which we don't laugh at now but mock <br /><br />The film starts off in a clichéd manner and some scenes are funny sadly such moments don't last long as the story never moves in this half even the comedy gets boring The twist is well handled and the second half becomes an action film where the blind guy and the deaf go to rescue the heroines and we have all OTT chase scenes and fight scenes<br /><br />Direction by Inder Kumar is bad Music is okay, one song stands out I LOVE YOU MY ANGEL<br /><br />Vivek is awful in the comic scenes, his timing is very bad and is okay in serious scenes For some reason he keeps doing comedy and ruined his career Fardeen Khan is tad better but too wooden Amongst the rest Esha and Amrita are the heroines Boman Irani annoys here Snehal Dabbi is okay
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
Super Mario 64 is undoubtedly the greatest game ever created. It is so addicting that you could play it for hours upon hours without stopping for a break. I've beaten the game 4 times, but I've never gotten all 120 stars...(I've gotten 111)...but I hope to achieve them eventually. Even though I didn't officially play this game until I was seven in, I loved watching my sisters play it. Now I am 13 and still play this, erasing games and starting over again.<br /><br />The graphics are unbelievable for an early N64 game. The gameplay is addictive. The controls are great. The levels are tough, but not impossible. The Bowser fights are challenging.<br /><br />I would like to tell you more, but why don't you just get it for yourself? Put the X-BOX 360, PS3, and the Wii away and go find yourself a Nintendo 64 and play this amazing, wonderful game.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
I used to love watching "Sabrina, the Teenage Witch" Friday nights on ABC's TGIF. I think this was one of the best shows on TGIF. My friends and I used to get together every Friday just to watch this show and we never missed an episode.<br /><br />My favorite character was Salem. He was adorable and sooo funny. I liked Sabrina's boyfriend Harvey, too. He was HOT. I think Melissa Joan Hart played a good teenage witch, too. My favorite episodes were "Sabrina Through the Looking Glass" and "Hilda and Zelda: the Teenage Years". Those episodes were great.<br /><br />Overall I really miss this show. I hope one day ABC brings it back with new episodes. I give this show 10/10 stars.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
Ming The Merciless does a little Bardwork and a movie most foul!
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
I'm fond of this film and it vexes me that so many "reviewers" rank it below the Peter Jackson trilogy. A filmed novel is always interpretive; in particular an animated film relies on the artist's vision and should be judged on its own terms. Speaking as a purist, this is a finer homage to Tolkien than the updated version. While this film has its flaws it stays truer to the source, especially so far as the characters are concerned.<br /><br />In the Jackson version Tolkien's Frodo is barely recognizable: from the first scenes he is portrayed as a weakling, constantly wavering, manipulated by forces around him and never standing on his own two feet (this is physically and metaphorically true.) You wonder why fate chose this limp biscuit to carry the one ring to the Cracks of Doom. Jackson unforgivably rewrites Tolkien and robs Frodo of his finest moment when he allows Arwen to rescue him from the Ringwraiths...Bakshi's version respects the original, presenting a Frodo who demands the wraiths "Go back and trouble me no more!" Bakshi sustains Frodo's character as Tolkien conceived it. We see his decline as the weight of his burden increases. Frodo is so pivotal to Lord of the Rings you wonder why Jackson took such liberties (he does so with numerous characters)since character development propels the plot to its inevitable conclusion. Bakshi's film better explores the companionship between Legolas and Gimli in a few judicious scenes that are completely lacking in Jackson's version. Similarly we see Boromir horsing with Pippin and Merry, furthering the idea of fellowship. For my liking the camaraderie is more developed in the animated version than the live action.<br /><br />Tolkien's poetry is an important ingredient in the novels and Bakshi makes tribute to this in one of my favorite scenes: when Frodo sings the "Merry Old Inn" song, minutes before stumbling into Strider. The cheery tune is chillingly juxtaposed with the darker theme music when seconds later, invisible to his friends but visible to the wraiths, Frodo is dangerously exposed. This is one of the most atmospheric portions of the film and chills me whenever I see it.<br /><br />The well documented budget/time restrictions limit this film's final impact but had it been completed it may have resonated with more viewers. As it is, it's worth a look. Even its detractors admit that Peter Jackson derived much of his inspiration from this prototype.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
This is exactly the reason why many people remain homeless . . . because stupid producers pay their money to make awful films like this instead of donating if they can bother!<br /><br />This film is even worse than white chicks! Little Man has a lame excuse for posing a character midget as a baby. Story is awful considering it was written by six people. The idea still wouldn't be too bad though, if it was original and not a rip-off of a cartoon episode. it has funny moments but some of them are way over-done and some are just stupid. The acting was very, very bad. So was the directing. Anyone involved in this film should be ashamed of themselves. it is racist and very offensive to midgets. I mean, instead of showing sympathy to them, the film-makers make fun of them! It really disgusts me how they do it. They see midgets being just like babies. And for a character who is a midget, pretending to be an abandoned baby just to get a diamond from a certain family. That is its lame excuse for showing something like that. It just was not worth it. Don't watch this film. It is a huge waste of time and money.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
There is such rubbish on the cable movie channels that I hit a gem with this one. From beginning to end it had me gripped and deserves top marks.<br /><br />Father of two sons hears messages from "God" to kill people who he is told are 'demons'.<br /><br />When the opening credits showed the director as one of the cast that can often be a warning of a bad film; exceptionally it is the reverse here as the drama is non-stop from beginning to end.<br /><br />And there is not one moment in the movie when one is not fully enthralled as there are no unnecessary or needless sub-plots, and the script is first class. <br /><br />All the actors give wholly convincing performances especially the lead child actor who is exceptional. <br /><br />This film is at least as good as the likes of 'Silence of the Lambs'.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
This is indeed a god adaptation of Jane Austen's novel. Compared with the American Version with Guinneth Paltrow, the script was written to resemble as much as possible the book. But the acting was awful. Besides Kate Beckinsale, who I believe was a true likeness of the Emma in the book, all the other actors were trying too hard. Mark Strong was not the "gentleman" he was supposed to be. He was often rude and offensive, had no feeling whatsoever, and throughout the entire film you could not see his love "growing" for Emma at all. This had a terrible effect on Kate Beckinsale, who seemed to be trying to "resque" her leading role as well as her partner's. Moreover, there was no chemistry between the entire cast. Hariett Smith, played by Samantha Morton, seemed to have no real attachment to Mr. Elton, played by Dominic Rowan. Therefore, she did not seem as heartbroken as she was portrayed in the book. The settings of the film are also too poor. The costumes are even more so. I would have imagined Emma Woodhouse to dress in a more fashionable and elegant way that she does here. The ending is also too long. It is good that it resembles the book's ending, but it is a killer ending for a film. And again, I can see no feeling of happiness in the face of Mr.Knightley. To conclude, I believed this adaptation to be loyal to the book, but with poor actors. It seemed as if the film was made without any budget at all. I would prefer to see the "lighter" version with Paltrow and Northam, even if it is clear that it was made to be a "blockbuster", than to watch these actors (excepting the good Olivia Williams and the better Kate Beckinsale) ruin the entire script.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
IF you are planning to see this movie, please reconsider. I don't usually post my comments about something I've seen on television, but this one was such a waste of my life that I needed to do something productive to get that bad taste out of my mouth. Critiquing this movie would take far too long as there are so many things wrong with it. I will just simply say, please do not ever see this movie. It was a complete waste of my time and it WILL be a waste of yours. Anyone that wrote a positive review of this movie is one of two things; utterly inept, or working for the company that produced it. Again, I guarantee that you will indeed regret seeing this movie!
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
Worst movie I have seen since Gingerale Afternoon. I suppose that this is a horror/comedy. I pretty much predicted every scene in this movie. The special-effects were not so special. I believe that I could come up with as good of effects from what I have lying around the house. I wish I could have something good to say about this movie, but I am afraid that I don't. Even Coolio should be ashamed of appearing in such a turkey. I do, after a little thought, have one thing good to say about this movie - it ended.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
I had no background knowledge of this movie before I bought it, but it sounded cool and I've been wanting to see a really kick-butt Viking movie for awhile now... alas, this film was not what I was looking for. I had hoped for the best, but instead, was delivered a boring Nordic soap-opera that seemed to drag on too long despite its 84 minute running time. The film's premise is intriguing enough: It's about a Viking warlord who defies his God and Odin is so enraged that he curses the warlord's son, named Barek, to death and rebirth as a Berserker. This Barek guy is then forced to live enraged, insane, and violent lifetime after lifetime. The movie is filmed competently enough, with some rich cinematography and quasi-good performances by the actors, but again, I found myself bored and questioning when this dribble would end. The filmmakers had a chance to make something rather entertaining and semi-unique but they dropped the ball. Perhaps it could've been improved with some cheap exploitation tactics thrown in such as gratuitous nudity and lots of gore... I mean, we are talking about "Berserkers" here, aren't we? Vikings were supposed to be BAD enough, what with all the raping and pillaging, so aren't Berserkers supposed to be even more extreme? All in all, unless you're a fan of The Young and Restless (etc...) or, are yourself, in fact, an insane Berserker who likes self torture, I'd probably steer clear of this drab piece of celluloid.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
At first I wasn't sure if I wanted to watch this movie when it came up on my guide so I looked it up on IMDb and thought the cover looked pretty cool so I thought I would give it a try expecting a movie like Elephant.<br /><br />Once I got past the fact that I am supposed to dislike the Alicia character played excellently by Busy Phillips, I realized what a good job this movie was doing toward setting up the relationship between Alicia and Deanna. Alicia is so mean to Deanna played by Erika Christensen almost throughout the entire movie but we eventually find out that they despite being polar opposites they have one thing in common besides being present at the shooting. They share loneliness and to what extent is revealed as the film progresses.<br /><br />I've just got to say how much I loved this movie and was glad to see all of the positive comments about it. I couldn't even get through Elephant because it just seemed to be exploiting the Columbine tragedy. This movie on the other hand was compelling and realistic. Busy Phillips acting is OFF the CHAIN!!! That is a good thing and I would love to see her progress into some more mature roles.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
As the film begins a narrator warns us THE SCREAMING SKULL is so terrifying you might die of fright--and if such happens a free burial is guaranteed. Well, I don't think any one has died of fright from seeing this film, but a few may have died of boredom. THE SCREAMING SKULL is the sort of movie that makes Ed Wood look good.<br /><br />Very loosely based on the famous Francis Marion Crawford story, SKULL is about a wealthy but nervous woman who marries a sinister man whose first wife died under mysterious circumstances. Once installed in his home, she is tormented by a half-wit gardener, a badly executed portrait, peacocks, and ultimately a skull that rolls around the room and causes her to scream a lot. And to her credit, actress Peggy Webber screams rather well.<br /><br />Unfortunately, her ability to do so is the high point of the film. The plot is pretty transparent, to say the least, and while the cast is actually okay, the script is dreadful and the movie so uninspired you'll be ready to run screaming yourself. True, the thing only runs about sixty-eight minutes, but it all feels a lot longer. Add to this a truly terrible print quality and there you are.<br /><br />There are films that are so bad they are fun to watch. It is true that THE SCREAMING SKULL has a few howlers--but the film drags so much I couldn't work up more than an occasional giggle, and by the time the whole thing is over your head will roll from ennui. If it weren't for Peggy Webber's way with a scream, this would be the surefire cure for insomnia. Give it a miss.<br /><br />GFT, Amazon Reviewer
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
Many of the American people would say...What??? to my opening comment. Yes I know that my comparison is without doubts an insult for the fans of the Master Akira Kurosawa, but if you analyze this movie, my comment is right. We have the peasant who goes to the town searching for help against a band of grasshoppers who wants to steal the harvest of the village. The great difference is the way that the story takes. Our samurais, a band of circus performers as in the original are a very complex mixture of personalities but at the end are what the village needs, HEROES. Please watch again this incredible movie (the Seven Samurai, obviously) and find another movies who has stolen the story and tried to get the same magic effect than the Masterpiece of Akira Kurosawa. A tip is The 13th Warrior with Antonio Banderas, Michael Crichton copied the story to wrote his Best seller's, but he didn't found the third foot of the cat.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
I saw this movie once, and I thought it was OK. Then my friends at work said "Watch it again, it's better". So I did. And to my surprise, it was WORSE on the second time! There's a word limit, so I'm going to get the ball rolling here.<br /><br />-The bombing scenes were all so stupid. Why on earth would anyone WAIT to trigger the explosion??? -None of the characters here are even remotely likable. Not on the first time, not even the second.<br /><br />-Oh, and last time I checked, a car does not explode from a single gun shot, nor can a fire THAT huge be put out with a tiny fire extinguisher... did the above 3/10 viewers actually watch the movie??? -The camera is so shaky, I can barely tell what is going on. That opening scene with the robot had my stomach off-put, the rest of the movie was not much better.<br /><br />-The sniper scene. The McManus Brothers (from "The Boondock Saints") would roll their eyes, it was so stupid. First off, why did the guy plant his gun where one person had gotten shot? Furthermore, why would he spend THAT much time cleaning the bullets, reloading, aiming and NOT get shot, when there was so much chaos going on around him? -SAS types RUNNING instead of staying and fighting back?????? Huh????? Are the soldiers... gay...??? I didn't mean to sound homophobic, but honestly, that scene was so ridiculous.<br /><br />-Too long for its own good, yet too short for the amount of material crammed into it. Bigelow seems to think that the more action, the better. Looks like she is wrong- the movie is full of superfluous action scenes thrown in there to distract you from the lack of a central plot. I know Watchmen is longer at 163 minutes, but at least that movie didn't drag. This movie, on the other hand, does, and for it, feels longer.<br /><br />The only good thing was Renner, who was satisfactory at best. But do yourself a favour, just skip this, and don't give into the hype.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
I was so surprised by how great The Man In The Moon truly was.I mean at first I was kinda expecting a cheesy, and predictable film, but I decided to put that aside when watching.Well, when it was over I was just left stunned(mainly in tears), by how great The Man In The Moon turned out to be.This movie is so entertaining and is so aware of its tone, and its just a fabulous film.The acting was great especially from Reece Witherspoon(who was so cute and lovable), and everyone else.There wasn't anything that really bothered me, I felt the ending kinda predictable, but very well done at that.Also I felt some things to be plain or as if it had been done before, but still a great film.Overall I must say I don't to much to say about this film, not that it was bad, its just a film you either like or don't like.I would however recommend this to any and everyone, even if you don't like these type of films, its still an enjoyable film.<br /><br />8.7 out of 10 stars
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
when i saw commercials for this i was thinking "NO WHAT HAS NICK AT NITE DONE!" because it was taking up "fresh prince" slots. well, i still love the fresh prince. but george lopez is a surprisingly good show. i love how not-stereotypical benny is. carmen is a pretty good character, its really funny to see how stupid and overemotional she can be sometimes. i feel bad for the guy who plays max, he looks much younger then he actually is! but max is a fun character, and acted well. and yeah, angie is a little stereotypical, but she has her funny moments. ha ha george does have a big head! nah but he can be really good too. funny show! it definitely should be on more often then home improvement.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
I saw this movie with my rock climbing instructor, and we found the entire thing so ridiculous as to be beyond pity. (For one, if Stallone is out free-climbing by himself, there's no need to carry any gear, but I guess those dangling carabiners look sorta "mountain climby," so let's throw them in). For those lobotomized folks who think that Colorado looks anything like the Dolomites in Italy (where the movie was filmed), well the Hollywood moguls have got a lot more ridiculous & foul-smelling stuff for you to swallow.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
At the end of this episode Holmes asks Watson not to record the case for posterity.For a good reason! The super sleuth left his little grey cells(sorry Agatha)at home for this tale. There is no deductive reasoning,no acute analysis of signs at crime scenes. Holmes bumbles along fifty yards behind the plot. The dastardly CAM is finally dealt to by an old frail-in a manner that would have made Charles Bronson's heart swell with pride-six bullets in the breadbasket.In an ensuing chase a pursuer gets hold of one of Watson's shoes.Mercifully the writer didn't decide to tack on the story of Cinderella to lengthen the film.The murderess,Holmes and Watson,escape scot free. Oh well,it is a bit of a change of pace in late Victorian London.A bit of sixgun law:-)
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
May I start off by saying that Casey Affleck is a very talented actor and I respect his work very much. I wish he was in more movies that showcased his talent. With this said, Soul Survivors was a very, very bad movie. Very bad.<br /><br />I would have to say that I lay almost all the blame on the poor script. Affleck is a very talented actress, Wes Bentley had an outstanding performance in American Beauty, Melissa Sagemiller did well, and Eliza Dushku is currently the it girl in Hollywood. I don't think any of the actors really got into the script, and I understand why. To say that this movie belongs to the horror genre is an overstatement. It did have the twists and turns you would expect, but they just didn't lead anywhere... except to more confusion. I just found the ending very anti-climatic, because it just didn't seem to make any sense or really answer any of the questions that I had about the storyline.<br /><br />I wish I could give this movie a good review, but I can't. In all honesty, the only thing I think you will find scary about this movie is that you paid for it.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
This movie started me on a Nick Cage kick. It is a story full of twists and turns- a movie of motives and moves. Of, course, Dennis Hopper was a ham, but J.T. Walsh and Laura Flyyn Boyle are the perfect pair to catch the unsuspecting man who has fallen into their web. Everything about this movie is good - cinematography, story pace and most of all the end. Cage excels at what he does best- it's not to be an action hero but to be an everyman caught in the snares of life.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
The last Tarzan film starring Johnny Weissmuller (looking surprisingly aged a year after "Tarzan and the Huntress") is bad, in spite of all the trivia one can add to make it look better. It is obvious that RKO tried to make a great farewell for Weissmuller, shooting in beautiful scenery in México, with a top star of that country (Andrea Palma) and multiple award-winning cinematographer Gabriel Figueroa, and bringing in prestigious composer Dimitri Tiomkin to do the score. Although it may have cost less for filming abroad, it looks more expensive than any other RKO film in the series, taking advantage of Acapulco beaches and real pyramids as Aquatania, and with impressive décors for all the scenes related to the temple of god Balu (especially the exterior, built on steep rocks.) Kurt Neumann should have stayed as director, instead of Robert Florey, who gives it a very slow pace. Neumann had done a fine work with "Tarzan and the Amazons", "Tarzan and the Leopard Woman" and "Tarzan and the Huntress", and finished his career directing the classic "The Fly" the year before his death; while Florey became a television director, after a career of few remarkable films. If Weissmuller looks tired, the chimp playing Cheeta is not as good as the others, but the worst character is Benji, an obnoxious mailman who sings horrendous songs (that have a Caribbean air, in a location supposed to be Africa and shot in México!) Boring and decidedly of dubious taste, it was a sad farewell to Weissmuller's Tarzan.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
I was watching this when my wife called to inquire from the other room as to my choice of fare. My comment? "I am watching my Life!"<br /><br />Though younger, but only by 5 years or so, than the "Rocket Boys" I remember the absolute urgency with which Sputnick was greeted by our administrators of education and how the whole Science Fair thing gained momentum and took me and others into the competitive whirlwind. My own tornado landed me in my own State's Science Fair, in Physics by '62, though our group was less successful in gaining the support of, for example, firefighters we approached for guidance and counsel until after a tragic event, our city went so far as to allow us to tour the Nike missile site on Chicago's lakeshore.<br /><br />This movie brought it all back for me and I will bet that it brought it all back for a bunch of us "UberNerds" of the late '50s and early 60's.<br /><br />We are in a similar science brain drainage period now and really need this movie as a country. See It!
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
OK..... This is the third in the series of carnosaur. Lets star with the dinosaur puppets! In the start of the film you cant See the Dino's cause when the body count starts you can only See the Dino's eye vision, pretty smart to hide the bad puppets! and maybe in 16 minutes forward on the film some special force team with Scott Valentine as the leader Rance, the team walks into the warehouse and then they begins to find body parts and dead body's after the Dino rampage, after a while some big box comes failing on the team and you can hear a velociraptor scream, pretty creepy!!! and then a black girl walks forward and now one blooper is found! It pops up a raptor hand and slashed her face but if you pause when the raptor hand comes you can See that its just a guy with a hand puppet!? WTF! The story is simple. 1. Some terrorist's attacks some truck cause they though It wash some weapons in there. 2. They where dead wrong it seams to be ten tons raptor and one giant t-Rex in there! How did the t-Rex fit in there??? 3. Rance and some nerds will kill the dinosaurs! Sadly some stupid blond girl told him to capture one of them alive=( 4. Holy Jesues the raptors have wheels on their feats! 5. The Dino's is now on a boat in the pacific. 6: Strange i didn't know that the t-Rex had a strange thing on hes neck??? 7. THE END. The film is good if you want a good laugh. 5/10
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
What I think I'll probably like best about the new Star Wars film, "Phantom Menace", is that it will likely blow "Titanic" out of the water, if you'll pardon the pun, when it comes to sheer devastating box office receipts, and thereby knock it out of the number one spot. Every time I hear someone declare "Titanic" is the greatest film they've ever seen, I think to myself, "You don't see a lot of movies, do you?" What a travesty. You could make 50 good films that are a lot better than "Titanic", and for the same price tag.<br /><br />"Well, it won lots of academy awards, lots of people really loved it," as someone might say in its defence. Well, lots of people like the Spice Girls and billions and billions of people eat at McDonald's, but that doesn't mean it's high quality. Yes, millions of Elvis fans CAN be wrong.<br /><br />I'll be the first to admit, that part of the problem for me was the mega-hype over the film. I waited a month or so to see it and ultimately, it didn't live up to the expectations set upon it, which simply called more attention to the appallingly stupid love story. It's true, "Phantom Menace" will likely suffer a similar fate. but.<br /><br />James Cameron's "Titanic" is. a) a cheesy action flick thinly disguised as a serious period piece. b) a three-hour epic that has it's finest moments given away in the trailer. c) a sappy love story beyond belief or entertainment. d) something left better to documentarians, which I would've enjoyed much more. e) a film with arrogance that lives up to the level demonstrated with the real ship. f) a robbery of 3 hours that I will never get back, therefore the greatest motivation for a time machine I can think of. When I meet someone who hasn't seen it yet, I say, "I wish I could trade places with you." g) a slap in the face to any genuine victim of hypothermia. How long are we supposed to believe that people can be immersed in freezing cold water and still form intelligible sentences? h) thankfully a film that wasn't recognized for any acting achievements at the Oscars. i) a technological achievement in filmmaking, and little else.<br /><br />The only reason I post this as a anonymous comment is I do NOT welcome the rebuttal of 10,000 thirteen year old Leonardo DiCaprio fans who'll no doubt come to his defense, and I am not really interested in hearing a defense of Titanic's story, acting or length.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
Thanks to Kevin Smith, a bunch of geeks are running around saying that Return of the Jedi isn't any good because it's actually fun to watch. And oh no! Muppets are involved! That makes it bad! Everyone liked Return of the Jedi until someone in a Kevin Smith movie made a negative comment about it. Now all of a sudden people people look at you like you have some kind of disease if you mention how much you like it. This movie is so much better than anything Kevin Smith ever even considered creating that it boggles my mind that the man would even think of denouncing it. This movie is good fun! It's just as awesome as I remember it being when I was six! Enjoy this movie for what it is and stop stealing Kevin Smith's opinions! His aren't correct!<br /><br />And that Ewok song at the end ruled! I bet you people don't even enjoy "Ewoks: Battle for Endor"!!!! I'm going to set you all on fire!
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
Karen goes into a Japanese house as a substitute nurse to Emma, a strange woman who sleeps at day and wakes at night. Karen goes upstairs after hearing noises when she encounters a frightening ghost. She will learn the house's secrets.<br /><br />It is very scary! The scenes are shocking and frightening! The characters are good. The settings are creepy. I love the whole plot! The ending was shocking! I paused at a scene where the little boy meowed so loudly to the man finding his sister upstairs and I was shocked. This is the scariest movie I have watched. I did not see the Japanese version. I recommend this to horror fans. 10/10 and 5 stars!
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
Once upon a time in a castle...... Two little girls are playing in the garden's castle. They are sisters. A blonde little girl (Kitty) and a brunette one (Evelyn). Evelyn steals Kitty's doll. Kitty pursues Evelyn. Running through long corridors, they reach the room where their grandfather, sitting on an armchair, reads the newspaper. Kitty complains about Evelyn, while Evelyn is looking interestedly at a picture hanging on the wall. Evelyn begins to say repeatedly: "I am the red lady and Kitty is the black lady". Suddenly Evelyn grabs a dagger lying nearby and stabs Kitty's doll and then cuts her (the doll's) head. A fight ensues. And Evelyn almost uses the dagger against Kitty. The grandfather intervenes and the worst is avoided.<br /><br />Later on, their grandfather tells them the legend related to the picture hanging on the wall in front of them, in which a lady dressed in black is stabbing a lady dressed in red:<br /><br />"A long time ago, a red lady and a black lady lived in the same castle. They were sisters and hated each other. One night, for jealousy reasons, the black lady entered the red lady's room and stabbed her seven times. One year later, the red lady left her grave. She killed six innocent people, and her seventh victim was the black lady. Once every hundred years, the events repeat themselves in this castle and a red lady kills six innocent victims before killing the black lady herself."<br /><br />The grandfather ends his tale by saying that according to the legend, sixteen years from now, the red queen should come again and kill seven times. But he assures them that this is just an old legend.<br /><br />Sixteen years pass.....<br /><br />This is the very beginning of the film. There are many twists and surprises in the film. It's better for you to forget about logic (if you really analyse it, the story doesn't make sense) and just follow the film with its wonderful colors, the gorgeous women, the clothes, the tasteful decor, the lighting effects and the beautiful soundtrack.<br /><br />Enjoy Barbara Bouchet, Sybil Danning, Marina Malfatti, Pia Giancaro, among other goddesses. There's a nude by Sybil Danning lying on a sofa that's something to dream about. And don't forget: The lady in red kills seven times!<br /><br />If you've liked "La Dama Rossa..." check out also "La Notte che Evelyn uscì dalla Tomba".
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
the single worst film i've ever seen in a theater. i saw this film at the austin film festival in 2004, and it blew my mind that this film was accepted to a festival. it was an interesting premise, and seemed like it could go somewhere, but just fell apart every time it tried to do anything. first of all, if you're going to do a musical, find someone with musical talent. the music consisted of cheesy piano playing that sounded like they were playing it on a stereo in the room they were filming. the lyrics were terribly written, and when they weren't obvious rhymes, they were groan-inducing rhymes that showed how far they were stretching to try to make this movie work. and you'd think you'd find people who could sing when making a musical, right? not in this case. luckily they were half talking/half singing in rhyme most of the time, but when they did sing it made me cringe. especially when they attempted to sing in harmony. and that just addresses the music. some of the acting was pretty good, but a lot of the dialog was terrible, as well as most of the scenes. they obviously didn't have enough coverage on the scenes, or they just had a bad editor, because they consistently jumped the line and used terrible choices while cutting the film. at least the director was willing to admit that no one wanted the script until they added the hook of making it a musical. i hope the investors make sure someone can write music before making the same mistake again.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
A family with dad Louis (Dale Midkiff), mom Rachel (Denise Crosby), 10 year old Eileen (Blaze Berdalh and about 3 year old Gage (Miko Hughes) move to this beautiful house in Maine--seemingly unaware of the semis that roar down the highway in front of their house every 90 seconds or so! The neighbor across the way (the wonderful Fred Gwynne) makes them feel at home...and shows them a pet cemetery where children bury their pets. But a little further on is a sacred ground which can bring the dead back to life...but the dead come back in a nasty mood.<br /><br />""DEFINITE SPOILERS** The novel by Stephen King was good--it was long but it developed characters and situations that made you care what happened. This movie jettisons ALL the character development and just plays up the gore and violence. Animals are killed ON camera (I know it's faked but it's still repulsive); a little boy is hit by a semi and his casket pops open during the funeral (in a totally sick scene); he's brought back to life and attacks and kills people including his mom (I DO wonder how a 3 year old was able to hang her); a ghostly jogger (don't ask) tries to help the family for no reason...The movie just works the audience over shoving every gruesome death or violence into your face. It just goes out of its way to shock you. **END SPOILERS**<br /><br />Acting is no help. Midkiff is just dreadful as the father--he's handsome and buff but totally blank. Crosby isn't much better. The two kids are just annoying. Only Gwynne single-handedly saves this picture with his effortless good acting. <br /><br />This picture shows a total contempt for the audience taking large leaps in logic and having characters do incredibly stupid things (especially Midkiff at the end). This movie was (inexplicably) a huge box office hit in 1989 which led to the even worse sequel in 1992. I saw it in a theatre back then and was disturbed how the audience kept cheering on the violence and was just appalled by what I saw. A sick repulsive horror film. A 1 all the way.<br /><br />When you think it's all over and can't get worse the Ramones sing a title song!!!!!! ("I don't wanna be buried in a pet cemetery"). Truly beyond belief.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
I think I've seen this sort of thing before: college graduates not realizing they have it pretty damn good, all the while, complaining that their lives suck.<br /><br />This movie is highly derivative of The Big Chill and Reality Bites from what I can make of it: they practically have the same plot.<br /><br />If anything good came out of this snore-fest, it was the music. That was it.<br /><br />As far as I'm concerned, I'm not impressed... but then again, I never expected anything less. This movie was directed by the same person that directed Batman and Robin; another movie that should only be viewed with a blindfold in tow.<br /><br />Now for the verdict: it's a 1 out of 10.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
Model Chris McCormack (Margaux Hemingway) is brutally raped by a teacher (Chris Sarandon) of her sister Kathy (Mariel Hemingway). He is brought to trial but goes totally free. He then rapes Kathy!<br /><br />Objectionable and sick rape film. This movie was advertised as an important drama dealing with rape. What it is is a badly written and (for the most part) badly acted drama. It purports to be sympathetic to the victim of the rape but shoves the scene in our face. To be totally honest however, Hemingway's acting is so bad in that sequence that it loses any real impact it might have had. The trial scenes were boring and predictable. And the movie just went too far when 15 year old Mariel is raped (thankfully that wasn't shown). I do admit though that it did lead to a great ending when Margaux grabs a gun and shoots Sarandon dead. But seriously--having a young girl raped is just revolting.<br /><br />Acting doesn't help. For instance, Margaux was no actress. She was certainly a beautiful woman (and an actual model I believe) but her acting left a lot to be desired. It lessens the film. Mariel was just OK but this was one of her first films. Sarandon does what he can as the rapist. He wasn't bad but the terrible script worked against him.<br /><br />I do remember hearing that at a screening of this back in 1976 some women stood up and cheered when Sarandon was killed so maybe this works for some people. I found this boring, simplistic and REALLY sick. A 1 all the way.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
"Cinderella" is one of the most beloved of all Disney classics. And it really deserves its status. Based on the classic fairy-tale as told by Charles Perrault, the film follows the trials and tribulations of Cinderella, a good girl who is mistreated by her evil stepmother and equally unlikable stepsisters. When a royal ball is held and all eligible young women are invited (read: the King wants to get the Prince to marry), Cinderella is left at home whilst her stepmother takes her awful daughters with her. But there is a Fairy Godmother on hand...<br /><br />The story of "Cinderella" on its own wouldn't be able to pad out a feature, so whilst generally staying true to the story otherwise, the fairly incidental characters of the animals whom the Fairy Godmother uses to help get the title character to the ball become Cinderella's true sidekicks. The mice Jaq and Gus are the main sidekicks, and their own nemesis being the stepmother's cat Lucifer. Their antics intertwine generally with the main fairy-tale plot, and are for the most part wonderful. Admittedly, the film does slow down a bit between the main introduction of the characters and shortly before the stepsisters depart for the ball, but after this slowdown, the film really gets going again and surprisingly (since "Cinderella" is the most worn down story of all time, probably) ends up as one of the most involving Disney stories.<br /><br />The animation and art direction is lovely. All of the legendary Nine Old Men animated on this picture, and Mary Blair's colour styling and concept art (she also did concept art and colour styling for "Alice in Wonderland", "Peter Pan", "The Three Caballeros" and many many others) manage to wiggle their way on screen. The colours and designs are lovely, especially in the Fairy Godmother and ball scenes, as well as in those pretty little moments here and there.<br /><br />Overall, "Cinderella" ranks as one of the best Disney fairy-tales and comes recommended to young and all that embodies the Disney philosophy that dreams really can come true.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
OK, forget all the technical inconsisties or the physical impossibilities of the Space Shuttle accidentally being launched by a quirky robot with a heart of gold. Forget the hideous special effects and poorly-constructed one-dimensional characters. Just looking at the premise of the story. The very reason for the film to exist in the first place, and you will see just how badly this film was pieced together.<br /><br />I know 9 year olds that look at this insult to the intelligence and just laugh at it. The story is horrible. The acting is comical and the message its trying to show is incomprehensible. And whats worse, is that the cable Movie channels KEEP SHOWING IT! Its on twice a day every two or three days! Why does anyone in their right mind think that people would want to see this painful piece of celluloid multiple times, much less to see it at all?<br /><br />My recomendation is dont even bother spending the energy to watch this thing. Its just not worth it.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
Love this film also. Saw it when it was first shown i8n Germany in a small independent cinema in Frankfurt. It was really crowded and it was a very ambitious atmosphere to. The erotic of the movie hit the spectators and the discussion with Moritz Boerner the producer and director was always underlined by that. In his genre it was a very ambitious movie even especially when you think that it was an independent movie.<br /><br />It doesn't exist much copies of that film, Mortitz Boerner came from the theatre and made two or three short movies more worked for TV as well before he became a sort of therapist.<br /><br />For the people who wish to see that movie again, you could find it on his homepage which isn't that easy to search for but its possible.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
This film deals with the Irish rebellion in the 1920s and more specifically one man's life after he informs on a friend for the bounty on his head and the subsequent consequences. Watching the film, I got the feeling that you could take the script and with just some minor updates, do it again and it, sadly, would still fit contemporary events. But te remake wouldn't be nearly as good. A magnificent performance by Victor McLaglen (for which he deservedly got an Oscar) and a fine ensemble cast that includes most, if not all the actors with brogues in Hollywood at the time, most of them recognizable character actors either established at the time or just starting out. A very good film well worth watching. Highly recommended.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
What is this crap? My little cousin picked this out obviously for the overly girlie DVD art and title... I decided to watch it with her so she didn't get bored, and I sure was appalled at the horrible quality.<br /><br />First, the acting was terrible. They seem like amateur actresses reading off of cue cards. The delivery is sub-par and very formulaic. Scene cuts were terrible.. it looks like they took it straight from the story board, if there was one.<br /><br />Secondly, the jokes and stereotypes weren't original or well played at all- again, very formulaic. I can't count the times I was able to predict the next joke. I got a few chuckles out of the blatantly "subtle" sexual innuendos. The Cat, The Beaver Patch, Hung Wong?.. c'mon! Just.. stay away from this movie. It's not cute, it's not funny, it's not even stupid-funny. It's just stupid-stupid. It's like a PG kids' movie with unnecessary sexual innuendo, vulgarity, and violence to bump the MPAA rating. STAY AWAY.<br /><br />"Would you like to ride my yacht?"<br /><br />"Is that what they're calling it now?"<br /><br />"You could ride my ding."<br /><br />"Oh! I think I got blood on my stool!"<br /><br />Badly played, sir.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
Annie's wig does not look good. she is not cute and pretty enough to play Annie. Annie sticks out in the movie, as her outfits look like Halloween costumes. terrible acting and terrible plots. This movie is such a change from the 1982 version. I think that a younger and smaller girl should have had the lead role. Ashley Johnson portrays a very boyish Annie. Not appealing at all. At least the casting director got it right with Daddy Warbucks. Ms. Hannigan was also miscast. Camilla Belle played Molly alright. "Warning" this movie might insult your IQ so you might just want to only show it to very young children. 8 and younger. Some of the plots are too fictional and could hardly take place in the real world.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
This movie was advertised on radio, television, magazines, etc. Almost every hour or every issue. So when we went to the Kinnepolis multiplex our expectations were very high. But oh boy, how sad this movie is! It is a movie in Hollywood style about a movie in a movie. Shades shows so clear we aren't ready to produce 'big Hollywood movies'. I am not a movie critic, but I think a good movie starts with a good script. And the script is a nightmare. Like my subject line says, it is nothing, and then looped. You could just stare to the television as well, without really seeing anything. That was the feeling we've got when we saw Shades. Shades is a BAD PRODUCTION!!!
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
This story is told and retold and continues to be retold in every possibly way imagine. The immortal Charles Dicken's story has been recreated in every possible way imagine. I admit I have not seen the classic Alistair Sim version and I'm sure someday I will but I would be blown away if it touched even close to this amazing eighties version. I believe that if Dickens himself had created his story for film this would be it.<br /><br />The story is well known, I won't go into much detail because everyone has seen it in one form or another. A rich, stingy, mean, old man is visited by the Ghost of his former partner and warned about his mean ways. In order to straighten him out he is visited by three spirits, each which show him a different perspective of his life and the people he is involved with, past, present and future. Finally in seeing all this before him he realizes the error of his ways in a big way and attempts retribution for all the wrong he has done.<br /><br />George C. Scott is absolutely, undeniably perfect for this role. He takes hold of the Ebeneezer Scrooge role and makes it his own and creates an incredible character. He is not just a mean old man, but someone who has been effected by certain situations in his life that has made him bitter and angry at the world. There is compassion within him but he holds it below everything else and is very self involved. Scott delivers the role of perfection when it comes to Scrooge.<br /><br />Not only does the leading role make this film but everything else fits into place. This is a grand epic of Victorian England, Dickens England is recreated before our very eyes, the sights and the sounds and you can almost feel the breeze in your face and the smells of the market. Director Clive Donner brilliantly recreates this scene and leaves nothing to the imagination. I could watch this film on mute and be dazzled by the scenery. It's not spectacular scenery per se but it's real. The film takes us from the high class traders market to the very dismal pits of poverty and everything in between.<br /><br />The rest of the cast fits into their roles and brings their literary counterparts to life. Bob Cratchitt, played by David Warner and his entire family including and especially the young Tiny Tim played by Anthony Walters were wonderful. The Ghosts each had their own distinct personality and added to the dark mood of this story. A Christmas Carol is not a light story. Dickens wrote this story for a dark period in England's life and it's one of the few Christmas tales that is really dark, almost scary, and it has to be scary in order to scare a man who has been a miser for so many years into turning around. The dark feel to the story is captured in this film and is downright frightening and yet the end lifts your spirits and captures Christmas miracles. The score to this film is also something to be mentioned as it is epic and grand and beautiful to listen to whether it's the actual score or the Christmas music, everything fits together. Apparently Christmas movies are my favorite because I insist everyone see this Christmas Carol above all others. 10/10
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
The Incredible Melting Man plays like an extended episode of The Six Million Dollar Man, but with violence and some nudity. I know this film is a bit crummy but I found it impossible not to kind of like it.<br /><br />The acting and script are not the best. But the effects are good for a 30 year old movie with a budget of $50 - the title character takes quite a while to actually melt but when he does it's reasonably impressive; we also have one inventive death scene involving electrocution. Of note too is the music, it's insane - a cheese-tastic medley of nonsense.<br /><br />Notable highlights: <br /><br />* Marvel at the slow-motion nurse who jumps through a pane of glass for absolutely no reason whatsoever.<br /><br />* Be amazed by a day in the life of a severed head.<br /><br />* Beware of the psychotic cannibalistic melting humanoid. Called Steve.<br /><br />* Be astonished when our hero takes a break from hunting the melting lunatic to have a bowl of soup and complain about insufficient crackers in the kitchen.<br /><br />This film is just too 70's for me to hate it. It's tacky and trashy but I thought it was a lot of fun. You could do a lot worse.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
A must see film with great dialogues, great music, great acting and a superb atmosphere.<br /><br />In the film you will follow 8 people for one day in the city of antwerp, they are all individuals and sometimes plain weird (that's how I love them!).<br /><br />I'm not going to say anything else, just go see and enjoy it.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
I only saw it once. This happened in 1952, I was seven, the movie 13.<br /><br />We were so young... But I kept in mind, forever, the strong moments of Gunga's sacrifice.<br /><br />I realized that time how much a people can be hardly submitted and used by a foreign nation. Under these historical circumstances, in the movie, the personal relation of friendship, a kind of friendship that ignores itself, the one raised between people who share daily life, who see each other faces, who knows each other names, but belong to different worlds, can only make appears. Then, in the most critical moments a troubling question emerges: "Whom are we, in first, supposed to be loyal?", which People, family, motherland, the person you know close to you?. You do not have time to give a perfect answer, urgency is there, and it is for life or death. Gunga-Din gives his answer with sacrifice of himself. Somewhere, in a confuse manner, a problem remains unsolved, the emotion grows with the rhythm of the movie until somebody dies, just one life, nothing compared to so many other fictions or realities we can see today, because this death, this unique vanishing life I lived it, I shared with my child unconditional friendship. It was lived by the spectator I was. That day I loose Gunga-Din for ever. As I left behind, later, my pretty childhood, as I left from then so many worlds I lived in. I left all that for good and these lines are today a short visit I didn't expect to do this morning when getting up.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
The number of goofs in this episode was higher than the first 9. They don't follow their own rules about spirits where destruction of the body makes the spirit dissolve. This one dropped a second body. That body, and Dean, drop about 20 feet from Sam but then they are right with Sam. Flashlights go out in an unlighted asylum, at night, and we can still see everything. It's night but light is streaming through the windows. A ghost that died in 1960's is making cell phones calls? Come on! There is no way Sam could get a psychiatrist to see him in the same day he makes an appointment and the doctor talks to Sam like it wasn't his first visit. Sam and Dean knew there were other bodies in the asylum and innocent spirits still lurking and didn't do anything to help them. That doesn't seem like a thing the Winchester boys would do. Oh and after crawling around on a dirt filled mattress and all around a nasty asylum the girls' makeup and hair is perfect and not a smudge on her white shirt. <br /><br />While the implementation of this episode had problems the premise was good and a few times I was not creeped out but nervous as Dean sat reading Elicots' journal. I just knew that an object so intensely personal to the ghost would draw it to the person violating it's sanctity. Elicot didn't appear. Maybe that is a fault for such an important object or place (like Elicot's office) should draw the spirit when a living being touches or enters. When they separate I want to scream... 'that's how you die! Always stay together and watch each others backs!' but they don't listen to me :o The Elicot spirit and his special ability was a very nice touch. It's prime-time show but I do wish the horror of Elicot strapping one of his victims down and using anticipation of torture to creep us out further.<br /><br />Especially because of the lighting goofs I gave this a 4. Sudden darkness or the flickering of the whole scene's lighting as the flashlight flickers is all that more terrifying. The lighter coming or the flashlight reviving and instantly a spirit is in their face is shocking. I understand the directors wants us to see his scene but then make a mention or obvious connection by Elicot touching an electric socket and the lights coming on. Have the characters respond to the fact an asylum with no power suddenly has lights in the one room. Blue white lights flickering as electric arcs just like Elicot's finger power. <br /><br />Seriously, MCG could have done better.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
Robert De Niro, Cuba Gooding Jr., Hal Holbrook, and all the rest of the actors and actresses in "Men of Honour" have combined to make this a fine movie. Mark Isham wrote the filmscore, so you know the music is truly fine, too.<br /><br />But: After noticing a slew of goofs, loopholes, and over-dramatic heart-string pluckings right from the start, I had to make a vow to ignore them and sit back to enjoy the film. If you can do that, it _really_is_ good.<br /><br />The story of Carl Brashear, a true-to-life hero, is inspirational enough to last a lifetime. Look him up on the internet... The entire story is more amazing than the film, as the Director admitted in his comments. There were only three African-American U.S. Navy divers in World War II. However, none reached the status of U.S. Navy Master Diver. Carl Brashear was THE first African-American U.S. Navy Master Diver. AND he was the first amputee diver to ever be certified or recertified as a U.S. Navy diver. (Resounding Applause).<br /><br />On the negative side of the movie's ledger: Should I tell you of only one of the many "loopholes"? Yeah, I'll mark this comment as containing "spoilers" and do so... The early, pivotal scene where the helicopter hits the radio mast and sinks into the sea: They'd never have had the time to suit up a full Mark V diver, even if he were the legendary Master Chief Billy Sunday, in time to be only "... a couple of minutes late" saving the pilot.<br /><br />So, for loopholes, goofs, and over-dramatization, I derated "Men of Honor" from a perfect 10 down to a 7.<br /><br />Will Hollywood EVER realize that the unalloyed truth is so much better that their over-dramatic approach to story-telling? I doubt it. Too bad!
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
Ok, first the good: Cher's performance and the cinematography. Although I'm no Cher fan, she gives an excellent performance and her part was well written. The cinematography was well done and captures a sense of romance.<br /><br />The Rest: a thin plotline, Nicholas Cage's performance, and a totally unhumorous and weak attempt to portray an Italian-American family from New York. Firstly, everytime time Cage opened his mouth I cringed. I don't know what kind of accent he was trying use. I honestly don't, it sure wasnt any New York or Italian accent I've ever heard. It was quite surreal. And it wasn't because I'm some stickler for accuracy, his voice just cloyed in my ears. And I like Nicholas Cage in other performances. Secondly, and this is purely anecdotal, but I have many Italian relations, friends and acquaintances in New York City, and frankly I've gotten more laughs and felt more joy in the appreciation of the Italian ethnic family by far than this movie provided. And that would be on a boring night at the house. What a let down.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
This movie is well done on so many levels that I am in awe that the score is as low as it is (5.9/10(576 votes) as of this writing). This movie has incredible special effects, a true epic storyline, complex great character interaction, and mind-blowing battles - they have to be seen to be believed! The only complaint I have is the subtitles on the HK DVD version I got (some lines were not translated - ???).<br /><br />I just don't understand when I read & hear from various sources: "it has a confusing plot....", "I couldn't follow the story...." or "Characters came from nowhere...". From the very 1st time I watched this movie, I understood it, followed it, knew why characters were there, and I absolutely loved it! I've watched it about 8 times already and each time it is pure enjoyment. Oh, and this is not just my opinion, because I've shown this movie to many fellow Americans (people who have never seen an HK film before) who feel the same way. Not one of them failed to follow the storyline and each person declared their love for this movie. Oh man, why can't we have stuff like this coming out of Hollywood? At least Lord of the Rings had a nice marriage of special effects, character development, and storyline.<br /><br />This is not coming from a Asian film lover newbie either. I own an extensive library of Asian films and I must say that this movie is one of my greatest DVDs. When you watch it you will be blown away by the amazing special effects and epic feel of this movie. You will be drawn into this fantasy world and you won't want to leave! I've seen both the 1983 version and the 2001 (both done by Tsui Hark), and the 2001 is far better in comparison IMO.<br /><br />Besides the subtitles, I have one additional complaint about this movie: I didn't want it to end.... I'm begging you Mr. Hark - can we please have a sequel?
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
'A Smile LIke Yours' is a pathetic comedy that actually makes no sense. I don't mean that the story was complicated, but the entire plot is based on one thing: a couple's desperate and expensive unsuccessful attempts to conceive children. People who tried that hard must've forgotten of the option of the adoption, to which this movie is not kind to.<br /><br />Lauren Holly plays Jennifer Robertson, a complete contradiction to anything offered by the women's liberation movement, exhibiting almost no sense of independence. She is quite a boring character as the dreamy housewife with absolutey nothing else on her mind but to have kids. Like a dumb 50's romance comedy, Greg Kinnear is her submitting husband who likewise displays no personality, no independence, and from us, no interest.<br /><br />They are the two most boring and often annoying characters, and they hardly make for topics of a comedy that should present itself with many mishaps, which should arise from a couple doing all they can to get pregnant. Except, they really don't do anything except go to a fertility clinic and shell out a whole lot of money to do what they could do in the privacy of their own (except for that in vitro fertilization number). The plot hardly allows for any mishaps, because well, the couple don't do anything to create any sort of bizarre situation. They just go to this clinic. So what?<br /><br />The subplots are meant to test the faithfulness of the couple, a necessary moral element of the story since the couple does plan on conceiving children together. Jennifer works at a new age shop with her friend (played by Joan Cusak), and they are in the business of developing aphrodesiacs. Christopher MacDonald plays the intrested buyer and Jennifer is the promising negotiator of a pretty price for her and her friend's product. The subplot hardly offers much to keep you interested (although Joan Cusak is pretty funny in the restaraunt scene).<br /><br />Danny (Kinear) is an architect, who finds an opportunity to make some extra money to cover the clinic bills, by taking on a job in Seattle, where his boss is the crass seductress (also another hopeless, helpless female character) who tries to influence Danny (as dumb as he is) to have an affair with her once things are conveniently rocky with him and his wife (for reasons I don't care to give away). Jill Hennesy is good in the role, but her character is too predictable, and too formulaic as a much needed element to create conflict for Danny. It is stupid and once again, hardly interesting. <br /><br />The overall movie itself is utterly boring, and hardly funny at all (save the restaraunt scene and the airline flight). The plot offers nothing that is really attention-grabbing. Even if the story was entirely about two people trying to conceive, the writers could've figured out several hilarious mishaps to develop out of that. Second, the main characters are completely boring. They are complete silouhettes of dumb 1950s comedies with happy wife and clueless husband. So, even without mishaps present in the plot, the characters themselves offer nothing interesting, let alone funny.<br /><br />Joan Cusak should've been in the lead and someone else should've taken Kinnear's part. Cusak would've made even a lousy story outrageously funny (as she sometimes does in her co-starring role here). This is definitely one to pass up.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
In this documentary we meet Roger, the rich manager of a factory in China that makes beads and other trinkets sold and traded at Mardi Gras in New Orleans. Roger claims the factory girls love their work and are grateful for the opportunities it provides, but interviews with four of them tell quite another story. The girls' bleak lives are shown in stark contrast to the bizarre excesses of Mardi Gras itself. Filmmaker David Redmon should be lauded for getting excellent and rare footage of everyday life inside a Chinese factory compound, and for landing a revealing on-camera interview with the head of the U.S. company that imports and sells the beads. The movie is compellingly told and clearly serves its purpose as a window into what lies behind those ubiquitous "Made in China" labels.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
I can't think of much to say about this film. <br /><br />This was an awful movie...I can't even tell you what made me decide to view it. It had SO few redeeming qualities that I don't even know where to begin.<br /><br />The plot moved from implausible to downright absurd. My entire body was tense throughout the duration of the movie because I could not wait for the awful thing to be over and done. By the end of the movie, I found myself feeling beyond relieved. <br /><br />The editing was poor, the acting was sub-par, and the storyline was weak. Francoise Robinson was cast as a Native American, even though she does not even closely resemble someone of Native American heritage. <br /><br />If a movie is going to be this idiotic, it should be laughably stupid -- at the very least. It wasn't. It was just pathetic.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
Trailers of this movie may show scenes of violence or non mainstream sexuality, but these scenes are just rare fragments, picked out to attract audience. They are, of course showing the main message of the movie:<br /><br />People who are constantly kicked on their heads in their jobs and lives, using power, which they may have somewhere else, to notoriously oppress others. And at the low end of the oppression chain, mostly women.<br /><br />A movie showing this as brutally as Hundstage is surely tough to face, but having to endure such lives, is even tougher.<br /><br />Technically the film is much like Short Cuts, but consisting of documentary style episodes, featuring people like your neighbour, playing just the way they are. Without any glitter, and most disturbingly, without any hope. Its documentary style makes the movie even more disturbing, because you realize, such people are out there, and there are many of them, although our society focuses on the nice exterior looks. Somewhere the porn industry has to do its business, somewhere unreported domestic violence has to take place, somewhere hopes have to shatter. I sure do know such people.<br /><br />If you want to see a movie without any funny scenes (some may think the handicapped woman repeating the top ten supermarkets is funny, but this happens for real) and without any melodramatic, go watch this movie. However it will lose when you are focusing on subtitles I fear, as subtitles can´t transport accentuation.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
This was a great movie with a good story. My children (10, 7, 5, and 4) all loved this movie, including myself. The music was also fantastic. No, the horses do not talk, but instead, the story is told by Spirit. And to hear a story told by a horse's point if view was fun.<br /><br />I think the title says it all, "spirit". This movie really gives you a sense of family and home and friends. I would have to say my 4 year old boy and 5 year old girl were really touched by this movie, and even got so into it, they laughed so hard, and they cheered for spirit in the end. <br /><br />Enjoy "Spirit" with your family and have your spirit lifted with this heartwarming story. Your kids will love it. I think you will too.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
Unless you are petrified of Russian people or boars, this movie is a snorefest. Actually, I fell asleep about 40 minutes in & had to fight the urge to just leave the theater. I wish I had. A waste of a perfectly lovely Saturday evening.<br /><br />Even "Silent Hill" was scarier. Heck, even "Pan's Labyrinth" was scarier. I'm still unclear on what was supposed to be scary in this flick.<br /><br />To begin with, I'm very leery of movies that use "pidgin Russian" like this one did in the opening credits. It's embarrassing to me since I brought a group of my Russian friends & we all cringed. Oh my god.<br /><br />Hmm. Well, luckily for me (& probably you, too) this movie has already escaped my brain & I just stepped out of it an hour ago. So I have no specifics, just murky visuals that go nowhere & some languishing-now-dead hope that anything would happen.<br /><br />Perhaps I saw a completely mutilated version of this film because I can't believe it got such great reviews here (which is why I saw it) & ended up being so completely devoid of not only Horror or Suspense but Overall Entertainment Value as well.<br /><br />I give it a 2 because, yes, I fell asleep & wanted to leave after 40 minutes but I woke up & didn't leave.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
Wow, i'm a huge Henry VIII/Tudor era fan and, well, this was .... interesting. The only one I watched was the Catherine of Aragon one. And wow...just wow. I've seen bad acting before, but this reached new heights. When the actress who played Catherine was umm.. crying? she wails and screams and i have to admit i rewinded many times... many, many times .... funny, funny stuff. The only person who even showed any slight sliver of talent was the actress playing Anne Boleyn (i might be prejudiced though, i do have a slight obsession with Anne Boleyn, she was a really facinating woman, read up on her, it's worth it!) Also, i have read a lot about the Tudor time period and i think that the characters weren't very acurately displayed, they were all very stereotypical. Only see this movie if you are prepared to see a very important time period, and the important lives of those involved turned into a laughing stock.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
This is a really great short from Hal Roach. This is because of two main reasons: The littlest kids in the short are among the cutest to have ever been on film and the plot has so many funny and well-written elements.<br /><br />As for the littlest of the Little Rascals, I honestly can't think of a cuter kid than Spanky at about age four. Despite being a rather chubby and unattractive kid in later years, he was just precious here. And, placing the little tiny boy in charge of babysitting the even younger kids was not only funny, but once again high on the cute factor.<br /><br />After the older kids blackmail Spanky into doing this awful babysitting job, all kinds of funny mayhem breaks loose. The gags are pretty effective and well-done for the time--with an accidental crank call involving a murder and a final scene where Spanky FINALLY gets control of the little ones being the most memorable. I haven't seen these shorts in many decades and I am glad I gave this one a chance.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
I got this as a turkey movie and was I not disappointed.<br /><br />Acting - overall even though many have been in other movies it is clear that they had to work hard to act this bad so constantly over this entire movie with out accidentally letting slip some degree of acting.<br /><br />Plot - being generous I could say that the scriptwriter did originally start with a plot but but did his best to ignore it. the plot broke down faster then a Chinese knock off computer <br /><br />Scrip - now that was an abomination of nature. it failed to flow with any rhyme or reason. the majority of the lines by the characters were at best pathetic to imbecilic. the script worked hard to make sure that no character managed to get to be considered memorable. I have watched other movies where the extras were more interesting and memorable.<br /><br />Special effects - ROTFLMAO!!!!! They were short bus special <br /><br />Directing - until you can come up with your own directing ability copy the style of your favorite directer otherwise you will only make failures like this.<br /><br />It is good to know that your friends/family have been giving you 10 stars for this movie
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
A meteorite falls in the country of a small town, bringing a jelly creature. An old farmer is attacked by the alien in his hand, and the youths Steve Andrews (Steve McQueen) and his girlfriend Jane Martin (Aneta Corsaut) take him to Dr. T. Hallen (Steven Chase). The local doctor treats carefully the blister, and asks Steve to investigate the location where they found the old man. When Steve returns, he sees the blob killing the doctor. Steve and Jane try to warn the police and the dwellers, but nobody believe on them, while the blob engulfs many people, getting bigger and bigger.<br /><br />"The Blob" is a cult and classic sci-fi. It is a low budget movie, with many ham actors and actresses (with the exception of Steve McQueen), awful effects, but also delightful and very, but very funny. This is the first time that I see this classic (I had seen the 1988 remake with Kevin Dillon), and I really recommend it to fans of Steve McQueen and sci-fi B-movies from the 50s. The film subject of my review number 1,400 could not be better. My vote is seven.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "A Bolha" ("The Blob")
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
Let me be really clear about this movie. I didn't watch this movie because of the plot, I watch it for the saucy sex scenes. That being said, this movie is so god damn awful I flip between pure joy of seeing a godly body of Traci (Mandy Schaffer) and cringing my eyeballs out for the disaster of a plot.<br /><br />Spoiler Alert The first scene of the movie already had me cringing.. you see a woman painting something by the lakeside, in pure bliss and serene, then a beautiful girl approach and ask if she could paint beside her. When they both finished, they show each other what they had done... and the woman painted A VINEYARD WHEN SHE IS FACING INFRONT OF THE LAKE. What kind of screwball director would make this kind of mistake?? And in another scene, Traci gets to kill her teacher's lover by smash him with the sail pole, and then she swims away, and none of the town's police suspected her once. I mean HELLOOOOO? MANDY DID NOT WEAR A GLOVE DID SHE? HER FINGER PRINTS ARE ALL OVER THE GOD DAMN BOAT!! After that, it gets worst, whenever Mandy is around, there is the "chilling" sound effect played which sounds like a cat in hissy fit. It's also a real pity Rosanna Arquette's is in this movie. I feel real sorry for her to have to star in this super low budget soft-porn no brainer. Same goes for Jürgen Prochnow, who also has the misfortune to star in this movie. All in all, 2/10.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
I have nothing more to say but it was awful. I cannot imagine why Helen Mirren and others were part of this degrading mess. And if certain actors don't want people to question their sexuality then perhaps they should refrain from making more of these films. There was at least one seen that left me curious. Just my opinion. SHUDDER to think what was going on that was cut from the film. SHUDDER to wonder what went through the minds of the actors who made this film. Shudder to think about the thought process and voyeurism that went on in the directors mind. Like I stated before its a degrading mess. Its not even funny. As Ebert said of the film Caligula with Malcolm McDowell, Its not a good film, not a good story and its not even good porn. YEESHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH............
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
My God, was this the "Run, Lola, Run" adaptation of Persuasion? It was horrible. Bad enough that the "screenwriter" (and I use the term very loosely) cut and pasted dialogue from one character onto another, often completely out of context and to rush the story along: but Anne Elliott running from location to location in pursuit of Wentworth near the end of the piece was an abomination! Austen must be spinning in her grave. No respectable young woman would have acted in such an atrocious fashion. And the actress that played Mary? Horrors. Needless to say, if the rest of the Austen remakes are this bad, they will be turning off a new generation of watchers.<br /><br />If you want to see an impeccable version of this (otherwise) wonderful novel, get the 1995 Roger Michell directed version starring Amanda Root (whose expressions alone can speak volumes) and Ciaran Hinds. It is superb.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
It doesn't take long to see why Code Name: Diamond Head didn't make it onto the network schedules. The TV pilot movie doesn't get past the credits before it's obvious just how bad it's going to be. Maybe I missed something, because the plot didn't make a whole lot of sense. Based on what I got out of the muddled mess, a terrorist or thief or something named "Tree" (Ian McShane) goes to Hawaii to steal something to do with a secret weapon. The world's dullest secret agent, Johnny Paul (Roy Thinnes), is out to stop him. There might have been more, but trust me it really doesn't matter anyway.<br /><br />Action movies should have action. Suspenseful moments should have suspense. And dramatic moments should have drama. There's none of that in Code Name: Diamond Head. I've seen others use the word "turgid" to describe this made for TV snoozer and it's better than any one word description I can come up with. None of the characters is in the least bit exciting or worth caring about. And Roy Thinnes makes for the worst leads imaginable. His charisma is just slightly north of a slug. Ian McShane is easily the best thing the movie has going for it, but unfortunately for everyone else involved, it doesn't appear he was going to be back as a regular cast member. Now if McShane had been cast in the series lead, well then you might have had something.<br /><br />I'm quickly discovering that these Gawd awful 70s made-for-TV movies make great Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes. And that goes double if Quinn Martin was involved. Very funny stuff from Mike and the Bots. So while I may only give the movie a 3/10, I rate Episode #608 a 4/5 on my MST3K rating scale.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
This movie is very entertaining, and any critique is based on personal preferences - not the films quality. Other than the common excessive profanity in some scenes by Murphy, the film is a great vehicle for his type of humor. It has some pretty good special effects, and exciting action scenes.<br /><br />As a finder of lost children, Murphy's character starts off looking for a missing girl, which leads him on the path for which others believe he was "chosen" - - to protect the Golden Child. The young boy is born as an enlightened one, destined to save the world from evil forces, but whose very life is in danger, if not for the help of Murphy, and his beautiful, mysterious and mystical helper/guide/protector.<br /><br />Also, there are moments of philosophical lessons to challenge the audience members who are interested in pondering deep thoughts. One such scene is where the Golden Child, that Murphy's character is solicited to protect, is tested by the monks of the mountain temple. An elderly monk presents a tray of ornamental necklaces for the child to choose from, and the child is tested on his choice.<br /><br />This is a fantasy/comedy that is based on the notion that there are both good and evil forces in our world of which most people are completely unaware. As we accept this premise of the plot, we must let go of our touch with a perceived daily reality, and prepare for the earth and walls to crumble away, and reveal a realm of evil just waiting to destroy us.<br /><br />This is an excellent movie, with a good plot, fine acting, and for the most part, pretty decent dialogue combining a serious topic with a healthy balance of Martial Art fighting, and Eddie Murphy humor.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
Note to all mad scientists everywhere: if you're going to turn your son into a genetically mutated monster, you need to give him a scarier name than "Paul." I don't care if he's a frightening hammerhead shark with a mouthful of dagger-sharp teeth and the ability to ambush people in the water as well as on dry land. Give the kid a more worthy name like, "Thor," "Rock," or "Tiburon." Because even if he eats me up I will probably just sit there laughing, "Ha! Get a load of this!!! Paul the Monster is ripping me to shreds!!!!!" That's the worst part about this movie is, this shark-thing is referred to as "Paul" throughout the entire flick. It makes what could have been a decent, scary horror movie just seem silly. Not that there aren't other campy and contrived parts of "Hammerhead: Shark Frenzy." The scientists spend the entire movie wandering along this island, and all of a sudden one of the girls starts itching madly from walking in the lush forest, and just HAS to pour water on her feet to relive the itching, which of course allows "Paul" to come out of the water and kill her. The one thing SciFI Channel did right in this movie was let the hottie live. But that's a small silver lining in an otherwise disappointing movie.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
this movie was fantastic great movie all through scary as hell. and i mean it freaked me out as much as pulse and IT and the omen etc. but with a great movie comes a crap ending right? RIGHT! this movies ending was pathetic stuff. i mean a ghost turned back time in a chicks house and it thinks now i have done that it means i can call her and itll be the right time cause she thinks it is. right? wrong. my ass! i don't care if the ghost is Satan, it just doesn't happen. its a movie yes but most evil movies or praised movies like this are meant to make sense but it didn't. it just showed us what i just said and people don't think anything of it. can someone please tell me why you all haven't noticed that pathetic part. the movie for me ended in the hospital and that is all. check out number 3 its much more kick ass
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
My definition of a great movie is if you want to continue to see it over again. This movie for some reason strikes a cord in me even though the scenes with Scott Glenn still make me winch; I watch it over and over again and love the music!
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
This film can't make up its mind whether its message is "humans are evil and bad and animals are sweet and blameless" or "don't ever go in the water again." A fisherman (Nolan) is out to nab a killer whale, a very bad thing, but when he accidentally (ACCIDENTALLY mark you) hits a pregnant cow instead of her mate, the cow -- and I use the word in all senses -- who is obviously a sick psycho-bitch and the canonical villain of the piece -- throws herself against the propellers trying to chew herself to bits in the most distressing and hideous not to mention ineffectual method of killing herself. (I doubt it was her first.) When her unborn fetus aborts from her hideous self-inflicted wounds, her mate goes mental with revenge and swears to hurt, kill and mutilate every human who even so much as talks to Nolan. Obviously as among humans, total psychos date other total psychos.<br /><br />The film reeks of half-thought out anti-human message, "the poor poor whale!! the evil men must suffer and die!" and yet, it does not succeed in demonizing Nolan at all. It's true that when he set out his motives were selfish and cruel, but at the first squeal of the first whale he grows a heart and, as the film progresses, he grows more and more compassionate to the whale's pain until it seems he will walk out on the ice and give himself to the whale, just to make it feel a little better.<br /><br />The films final journey, in which Nolan follows the whale on a bizarre journey to the north, reminds me of Melville's eerie man-whale connection, and for a moment hinted at a truly interesting conclusion, where these two husbands might connect, understand even respect each other in their own grief, for Nolan lost his wife and unborn child also to an accident. It's clear Nolan respects the whale and feels for its loss. However, it never goes there. The whale-character has no compassion or respect for anyone.<br /><br />The final scene loses this focus and becomes Jaws-like where the sea-monster finally kills everybody and Nolan and no-doubt through an oversight, fails to chomp up the whale-hugger (tho he made a good snap for her head a little earlier.) I love animals, and I detest whaling, and what is more I love orca whales, but if this film's goal was to make me feel that the whale was the victim and that people are evil and detestable it completely failed. Nolan shows compassion and growth, and feels for others, and all the whale thinks about is killing and maiming.<br /><br />The only message one can walk away with is "If you see an orca whale, ever, anywhere, run the other way cause if you step on his FIN the wrong way, he will hunt you to the ends of the earth destroying everything around you."
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
Quite frankly it seemed like seven hours of boredom as well. What is it? What is it about Will Smith that I just can't stand any longer? I guess he just seems too hellbent on being taken seriously and obtaining an Oscar. I understand how bias this is, but unless he undergoes some new acting lessons I can't ever see him winning one. He's a huge name and is therefore generally confused with being a talented and diverse actor. He's just not. I give him credit for trying so hard, and being able to cry at the drop of a hat. That's about it.<br /><br />Seven pounds was kind of an eyeroller for me, right from the start. The suicide 911 call didn't intrigue me in any way. I wasn't curious to know why he was calling in his own suicide. There were absolutely no surprises. The best I can say is that Will Smith and Rosario Dawson had some decent on screen chemistry. Also, I don't know her name, but the hispanic woman did an excellent job with her role as a scared and beaten wife. Woody Harrelson had very limited screen time, but I'd say he stole the show whenever he was on.<br /><br />All in all, just an extremely run of the mill unoriginal plot. I couldn't help asking myself the whole way through why I cared about any of these people. Never once felt sorry for 'Tim/Ben'. He killed himself with a jellyfish? Was the only survivor in an 8 person accident? Geewiz..didn't see any of that coming...<br /><br />5/10 is pretty generous.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
Cypher is a movie well worth seeing because it's not the run-of-the-mill Sci-Fi flick. The artistic approach is painted with dark scenes and a kind of macro view of what's going on. The close-up camera view is how the director keeps the plot illusive. The sci-fi aspect of the movie is secondary to the plot of the movie. The technology used in the movie isn't overly impressive, however, the director makes good use of the props. <br /><br />The character development is intentionally shallow. The main character, Jeremy Northam, decides to immerse himself into the world of espionage. It's up to the audience to figure out his enigmatic character and it's the enigma that keeps the audience interested right to the very end.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
I'm never much for classic films. Movies like Patton, Going My Way, How Green was My Valley, The Godfather, Casablanca, Annie Hall, Gone with the Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, and Citizen Kane bore me. However, I would much rather watch any one of those films 3,469 times while being tied up on a chair than watch An American in Paris once in the most luxurious suite ever. If I did the latter, I'd probably be sleeping the entire time.<br /><br />The color art direction and the music didn't interest me, Gershwin or non-Gershwin. The dancing and the singing could help an insomniac fall to sleep. The dialogue doesn't match up to Singin' in the Rain. Basically, this movie is boring. The only other film that I fell asleep while watching was Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. But you can't blame me. I only slept 5 minutes the night before.<br /><br />1 star/10 (Too bad we can't give zeroes.)
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
I saw this film at the Toronto International Film Festival. Filmed during an actual qualifying match for the 2006 World Cup, Offside works brilliantly as both a comedy and a tragedy. The film follows the fortunes of a group of young women who are caught trying to sneak into a football match at Tehran's Azadi Stadium. The country's Islamic religious leaders have decreed that women may not sit with men at sporting events, lest they be exposed to cursing and other morally questionable behaviour. This hasn't stopped the country's young female fans, who continue to sneak in using various tricks. But Panahi focuses on a small group who have been caught and are being detained agonizingly close to the action. They beg the bored soldiers guarding them to let them go or at least to let them watch the match. The soldiers tell them they shouldn't have tried to get in, that they could have watched the game at home on TV. They banter back and forth in almost real-time as the game continues, just off- camera.<br /><br />There is one very funny sequence where a young soldier accompanies one of the girls to the restroom. Since there are no female restrooms at stadiums, he has to clear the room of any men before he can allow her to go in. Plus, he makes her cover her face so no one can see she's a woman. This is accomplished using a poster of Iranian soccer star Ali Daei as a mask, with eye holes punched out.<br /><br />You get a real sense that even the soldiers are baffled by the prohibition, and are only carrying out their orders so as to hasten the end of their compulsory military service. One soldier complains that he was supposed to be on leave so he could take care of his family's cattle in the countryside. Little by little, the girls and the soldiers talk to each other, and there are numerous small acts of kindness on both sides to show that these are basically good people living in terrible circumstances. However, the soldiers' constant reminder that "the chief" is on his way lends a sense of menace, since we don't know what sort of punishment the women will face.<br /><br />Unlike most Iranian films, which are known for their strong visuals, Offside is filmed in a realist style with no artifice. In fact, the film was made during the actual qualifying match against Bahrain that took place on June 5, 2005. The "plot" in many ways was determined by the result on the pitch. If Iran won the match, they would qualify. If they lost, they would not. Since the World Cup has come and gone, I don't think it is a spoiler to say that Iran won the match. The scenes of celebration at the end of the film were real and spontaneous, which gave the film a real authenticity. Seeing how much this meant to the people of Iran was deeply touching.<br /><br />As well, one of the young women makes reference at the end of the film to seven fans who died during the Iran-Japan match on March 25, just a few weeks before. They were trampled to death after police began to spray the crowd with water to move them in a certain direction. Knowing that this was a real-life tragedy added another level of poignancy to the celebrations.<br /><br />I don't want to go off on a long political tangent, but this film gave me real hope that there are those in Iran who are hoping for change and working at it. Iran is a nation of young people, and it is only a matter of time before they take the place of their elders in the political sphere. Films like this one show the proud spirit of the Iranian people in spite of their present difficulties, and it's my sincere hope that there is a brighter future for them.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
It's amazing that this movie turns out to be in one of my hitlists after all. It is by far the number 1 worst movie I have ever seen.<br /><br />Not only have I ever been this bored before (luckily not for more then 1,5 hours), the pre-adolescent attempts at humor that feature it are not even close to getting but one of the corners of my mouth slightly tilted. After the first very awkward part, you tend to hope that the other parts will be at least slightly better. You hope in vain, it only goes downhill from there.<br /><br />The movie has no story worth telling whatsoever and repeats this non-story three times. One can only hope that by some miracle all remaining copies of this movie are lost forever and Trent Harris never lays his hands on a camera again...
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
When two writers make a screenplay of a horror version of Breakfast At Tiffany's, you know something is going to go right. Drew Barrymore, Patrick Highsmith, Leslie Hope, and Sally Kellerman are excellent actors. The FBI agent was a terrible actor. The scenes where Patrick looked Holly up and down like some sort of objectifier, those was just weird. Drew Barrymore is very hot. Intimate Strangers, where Sally Kellerman worked, was a great part. The weird gummy worm was just weird. Nathan was a very handsome cat. But what was that scene where Patrick followed Holly into a cesspool and Mr. Gooding attacked him? And the scene with Dr. Wallace? What was he doing fumbling around in there? And not every male has a female, as Sally Kellerman stated. And when Patrick and Elizabeth saw Drew outside of Victor's, that was weird.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
Back in the days before the Toxic Avenger, the low-camp kings at Troma Films tried to take the high (OK, somewhat-less-low) road of producing straight slasher pics. I'd like to think that viewing the results here is what convinced them to give up all pretension and go for self-conscious parody.<br /><br />Splatter University is another film for the masochists in the audience. As it meanders about through two separate casts and innumerable pointless subplots, it actually becomes painful to watch. Let's see if I can summarize.<br /><br />After learning that a dangerous psychopath has escaped from a local hospital, the action moves to a Catholic university (I don't recall the name, but in honor of the title, let's call it St. Splatter). The students are listless and sullen, and argue pettily with each other, slackers ahead of their time. Meanwhile, the new professor, Julie Parker, proves utterly incompetent at her job. The kids deal with relationships, infidelity, unwanted pregnancies, lecherous priests, and how to avoid doing any work in class; Julie deals with a creepy boyfriend, the inflexible administration at St. Splatter, counseling unwed mothers, and the blank, expressionless looks of her students. None of it means a darn thing or gets resolved in any meaningful way. Oh, and every once in a while, a POV shot comes along and stabs one of the girls to death, but don't hold your breath waiting for it. There's a Red Herring Killer, and then a sadly anticlimactic confrontation with the Real Killer, then it's back to the asylum and roll credits.<br /><br />The slow pace and numerous inane subplots seem almost calculated to produce a mounting sense of frustration in the viewer, which is helped along by choppy editing, coffee-can sound quality, and dialog that just doesn't make any sense. And the most agonizing thing about this movie is the killer's fixation on women - the men in this movie are just so deserving. I'd've paid good money to see someone off the jerk with the pregnant girlfriend, or the lunkhead Lothario who was fooling around with his girlfriend's roommate, or any of the creepy priests. There ain't no justice.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
As a movie this barely rates a 4 but for movie fans of the 1940s period, it's almost a must-see and rates a 9 as a variety show! I was drawn to watch this by the presence of Richard (Captain Midnight) Webb who plays the Colonel in charge of the event. What surprised me was the stunning performance of Doris Day. Outside of 'Calamity Jane', I've never seen her put over a song better than she does here. Randolph Scott is memorable as well, even if he doesn't see much screen time. It's been a while since I saw the movie but I was almost sure Humphrey Bogart put in an appearance. With so many familiar faces, it's hard to keep track. If it ever turns up on a TV station near you, be sure to catch the Doris Day sequence, if nothing else!<br /><br />
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
Jennifer Jason Leigh and Mare Winningham are a good match portraying vastly different siblings, but only Winningham is able to bring something convincing or substantial to her role. Leigh, playing bar-band singer and alcoholic Sadie Flood, constantly leans on older sis Georgia, an acclaimed folk singer in the Joni Mitchell mold. Perhaps due to her double duties as co-producer on the film, Leigh seems to have boxed herself into a corner: she isn't credible as a singer and, even if this is intentional, gives herself far too much screen-time at the microphone. Probably hoping for a tour-de-force, Leigh is wire-drawn and nervous and jagged; however, we simply do not see any talent within this character (Leigh is obviously a solid actress, but she makes decisions here that wall us off from her). If Sadie had even the slightest bit of charisma or appeal, we might be able to buy into the concept that she gets the (small) breaks that she does. As it is, the likelihood of her ever getting up on stage is slim. Director Ulu Grosbard crafts a few intense dramatic sequences, and the editing at the finale juxtaposes Sadie's bar performance with Georgia's sold-out arena show--both singing the same song--and it's a sadly nuanced moment...but really, what's the point? *1/2 from ****
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
I've gotta say, I usually like horror movies that i've never seen... however, this one was just to pathetic for my gory taste. I'm used to the gory, gut wrenching types... but this particular movie was lame. The acting was horrible (yet the corny (no pun intended) one-liners were cute). And the sequel to it, Scarecrow Slayer was even worse! Yes, probably, when it first came out, there was a huge rave about it and people liked it. But when movies like The Ring and The Exorcist of Emily Rose come out, movies like these make movies like Scarecrow seem childish. If you want a movie to just pass the time, pick this one! The special effects are cheesy as heck. But seeing that it was a low budget movie, I can kind of see where that would come in. This will kind of remind you of the movie "Children Of The Corn." Independent movies rock.... most of the time. So if you want to see a scarecrow killing people with corncobs, or in the sequel, 2 scarecrows going at it, then these movies would be for you.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
Dr. K(David H Hickey)has been trying to master a formula that would end all disease and handicaps, but needs live donors to complete his work. His doctor brother Richard(Dennis O'Neill)has a son named Eddie(Derek Philips)who is accepted to medical school. Eddie has a girlfriend named Sarah(Lizabeth Cardenas)who is pre-law and plans to attend law school herself the coming fall. She and Eddie resume their relationship when Sarah calls things off with her current boyfriend who is also shagging the lady of Walt(Bill Sebastian;Eddie's best friend who recently paid for his cheating girlfriend's boob job). Eddie accidentally gets hit by a car and appears on the throes of death when Dr. K makes a suggestion to Richard..let him "recuperate" Eddie using his secret, illegal methods. When Dr. K applies his serum to Eddie horrifying results occur. Eddie's face bulges massive warts while he has also acquired a taste for human flesh. Many will die so that Eddie can feed this uncontrollable appetite he can't quench. Soon he may even pose a threat to his father and girlfriend..Eddie Monster must be stopped.<br /><br />Typically awful direct-to-video horror flick suffers from a severe lack of budget, acting, and overall talent. The premise, which seems like an interesting fright-fest, fails to deliver even as a zombie flick. The gore is limited with a few munching scenes but most of the violence occurs off-camera. The use of time to move the story along can really get annoying.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
I have heard a lot about this film, with people writing me telling me I should see it, as I am a fan of extremely bloody, gory movies. I got my hands on it almost right away, but one thing or another always kept me from watching it- until now. I would have been better off not remembering I even had it.<br /><br />This movie was atrocious. The worst thing though is that it could have been so much better than it actually was. I know it was a story by Clive Barker and all, and no I have not read that story- but it appears to me that if you haven't then you will be, as I was, completely clueless and utterly disappointed.<br /><br />The film begins good enough- the actors are convincing, the story interesting. The first scene is bloody- a great way to catch your attention. I thought the blood looked a bit bad, but seeing as it was the very first scene I did hope for improvement later on. I was wrong. <br /><br />The blood and effects are so horrible, it was almost an insult to my intelligence to be expected to believe that, for instance, someone could knock a person's head right off their shoulders using only a meat hammer. WTF? CGI blood (did they even use ANY "real" blood at all? My home made stuff looks better than any used in this film!), unbelievable acts of dismemberment (eyeballs popping out just from getting hit in the back of the head; arms cut neatly off- does no one remember there are BONES all throughout our bodies?!), too-dark scenes (every scene is either an odd yellow color, or in hidden in shadows)...it just gets worse and worse. I found myself pointing out mistake after mistake. There's just too much. Add that to the fact that what could have and should have been a great serial-killer movie turns into some demonic/supernatural/monster movie at the end...no thank you! It should have been kept as a creepy guy butchering people in the subway- OK, with a conspiracy theory thrown in- and an overzealous photographer. Maybe they murder people and sell the meat via the meat plant? Plausible, doable...and a lot better I think than the "real" story. That could have and should have worked. Instead it became a "creatures living at the end of the old tunnel and everyone knows about it but you, and unless you read the book, well...you just won't ever understand it" fiasco. Tragic, what an awful thing to do to a movie with such potential. If you like mindless fake blood and gore, you'll love this. But if you have half a brain in your head then you will completely hate it. Stay away- far, far away.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
A warning to potential viewers: if you are looking for an adaptation of the classic story "The Most Dangerous Game," look elsewhere. "Seven Women for Satan"<br /><br />only superficially addresses the original work by using the name of Zaroff and having said character murder people.<br /><br />Some of what follows might be considered by some to be spoilers. Or not.<br /><br />Boris Zaroff is played by writer/director Michel Lemoine. Whereas his ancestor hunted men because they were the only prey that were truly challenging, Boris' victims are usually in a position where they cannot defend themselves. The film rambles from scene to scene with a near-total lack of clarity. The director seems to have totally disregarded pacing and left the viewer with a suffocatingly dull film. A few individual scenes are mildly interesting (such as a torture rack sequence), but as a unit, the film fails to entertain. Viewers who are more<br /><br />interested in an assortment of attractive and semi-attractive actresses in various stages of undress might find the film watchable. Most will probably find their time is better spent watching Mentos commercials.<br /><br />In a side note, the DVD extras included a fair amount of information on the film's history. Apparently, it was banned for several years in its native France which pretty much ruined any chance it had for widespread distribution.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
The championship game is only a couple of days away, but things in New Orleans aren't as they should be. From players with marital problems to drug overdoses to gambling problems to a killer on the loose, life is getting in the way of what should be a memorable, wonderful time. Can things be put back into order and a killer stopped before the big game is ruined? <br /><br />Despite what you might think when you first read about Superdome, this is not a football movie. In fact football is nothing more than a plot device and an after thought. Instead, Superdome is another of those lousy soap opera-ish 70s made-for-TV movies populated with Hollywood has beens and those that never will be. The cast sleepwalks its way through the thing with no one really looking good. The best (or worst) example is Van Johnson in a very small role looking generally lost as to why he's there. The plot is dull, uninteresting, and unbelievable. Donna Mills as a hit"man"? Yeah, right! It's about as believable as the affair she has with the liquor soaked David Jansen. The movie also lacks any pace. Trying to get all four or five story lines into the film zaps whatever flow Superdome might have had. With no drama or suspense in sight, Superdome ends up being a very poor example of a 70s made-for-TV movie. The lone highlight for me was the voice-over work from the late Charlie Jones - a sportscaster I miss listening to. The eloquent way he overstates the intrigue and over-hypes the atmosphere in New Orleans is pure cheese at its finest.<br /><br />Like most others who have seen Superdome, I also did so courtesy of Mystery Science Theater 3000. It may be one of the KTMA public access episodes, but it's one of the best examples of the shows early start. So even though I've only rated Superdome a 2/10, I'll give this episode a generous 3/5 on my MST3K rating scale.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
Hahahaha!!!!!!Funny-that sums this movie up in one word.What the crap was this "thing",since It might kill me to use the word movie!?!?!I hope the director,writer,and producer didn't mean for this to turn out good,because it sure didn't!!!A scientist turning his son into a hammerhead shark,and the shark killing a bunch of people the scientist invited to the island!!!Oh my Gooooooodddd!!!!I hate this film so much that when I was watching it I laughed at all the serious parts,because they were so corny and unprofessional....and they couldn't have made the shark look more unrealistic,even though this "thing" had a bit larger budget than most low-budget movies.All I have to say is watch this movie expecting to laugh at all the bad acting,and stupid corny dialogue,because if you are expecting a good movie you'll be highly disappointed.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
Quite typical for swedish movies of this type. Strange that the acting was soooo bad, these actors usually give a good show. The casting was poorly done, it made you expect something (I won't tell you what). The lead character was awful... I don't know where they find her. Anyway, stay away from this and go see "Den Tredje Vågen" instead, this is swedish action in is prime.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
Homeward Bound is a beautiful film. Y'know the part where Shadow falls down the ditch... thingy, I *cried*, considering I was only six, I cried! it takes a lot to make me cry! The dogs and the cat are excellently trained. A nice family movie, *not* for completely hardened non-fluffy people or animal-haters but could for soft-as-crap a.k.a. people like me.<br /><br />A good film overall, 10/10!
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
Shannon Lee,the daughter of Bruce Lee,delivers high kicking martial arts action in spades in this exhilarating Hong Kong movie and proves that like her late brother Brandon she is a real chip off the old block. There is high tech stuntwork to die for in this fast paced flick and the makers of the Bond movies should give it a look if they want to spice up the action quotient of the next 007 adventure as there is much innovative stuff here with some fresh and original second unit work to bolster up the already high action content of "AND NOW,YOU'RE DEAD". When you watch a movie as fast paced and entertaining as this you begin to wonder how cinema itself was able to survive before the martial arts genre was created.I genuinely believe that movies in general and action movies in particular were just marking time until the first kung fu movies made their debut. Bruce Lee was the father of modern action cinema and his legitimate surviving offspring Shannon does not let the family name down here.Although there are several pleasing performances in this movie (Michel Wong for one)it is Shannon Lee whom you will remember for a genuinely spectacular performance as Mandy the hitgirl supreme.Hell;you may well come away whistling her fights!
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
I love the comics. Although I do have problems fully understanding the stories the visual style is unique with all its dirt, dust and decay. So I thought I knew what I was up for. Surprisingly I understood the main plot but some extremely poorly decisions where made for its visual style. <br /><br />I mean - really bad looking "CG human actors"-in close ups?
Why?! It did not work at all!! Horus - and the other Egyption gods - was successfully made in CG and very close to the comic version. <br /><br />I think with real actors this movie could have been a cult movie. <br /><br />What a shame.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
Wow baby, this is indeed some fine Asian horror/gore, and a crazy outlandish movie. This is a Japanese splatterfest that reminded me a little of Tetsuo, except in this case with all the blood and guts, there is a bizarre love story. It's hard to imagine how they even dreamed up this visually stunning movie, with some unique alien creatures that infect humans as parasites, turning them into part machine or I guess cyborgs. The only thing wrong with these creatures after they take over a human, is they need to kill each other and eat the other. hmmm, yum yum. This would probably be called industrial splatter or something like that, with a superb soundtrack to add to all the fun. The movie also borrows a little from Carpenter's "The Thing" in creature design and effects. I would put this in the must-have category for gorehounds, as there is non-stop carnage and some very fine gore. And a must-have for stoners, because you don't even need to read the sub-titles, the visual images alone are enough of a mind trip. The design of the little creatures that inhabit the human body like a fetus reminded me a little of Frank Henenlotter's movies, which is another homage to some excellent gore films with a sense of humour. "Meatball Machine" is great fun for gorehounds, there is no doubt about it, and I simply loved it.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
The Journey of Hope (1990) is about a trek that many nomadic and poor Turks make so they could live the good life in Switzerland. These people are so desperate to live like Westerners that they'll give up their life and lives in an attempt to reach the promised land. So many of them are swindled by greedy crooks who make their living off of charging huge fees for desperate people who are in a no win situation. One family braves the cold, the treacherous mountain range and predatory criminals only to discover that there's not always a shining white light at the end of the tunnel. This problem exists world wide, not just in America. Some people tend to forget that. A heart breaker of a film that'll leave you wondering why at the end.<br /><br />Highly recommended.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
One of my all-time favorite so-laughably-lousy-that-it's-totally-lovable el cheapo and stinko nickel'n'dime independent horror creature features, an enjoyably dreadful marvel that was released by the formidably fecund exploitation outfit Crown International Pictures so it could play numerous crappy double bills at countless drive-ins back in the 70's and eventually wound up being rerun like crazy on several small-time secondary cable stations throughout the 80's. I naturally first saw this gloriously ghastly abomination on late-night television one fateful Saturday evening while in my early teens and have had a deep-seated, albeit completely irrational abiding fondness for it ever since.<br /><br />A meteorite falls out of the sky and crashes into the still waters of a tranquil country lake, thereby causing a heretofore dormant dinosaur egg to hatch. Of course, the baby dino immediately grows into a gigantic waddling, grunting, teeth-gnashing prehistoric behemoth with goofy flippers, an extended neck and a huge mouth full of little sharp, jagged, stalagmite-like chompers. Our Southern-fried male cousin to the Loch Ness Monster promptly starts chowing down on various luckless local yokel residents of a previously quiet and sleepy hillbilly resort town. It's up to drippy stalwart sheriff Richard Cardella, assisted by the painfully idiotic hayseed comic relief brotherly fishing guide duo of Glenn Roberts and Mark Seigel, feisty gal pal Kacey Cobb and terminally insipid nerdy scientist Bob Hyman, to get to the bottom of things before the over-sized gluttonous Jurassic throwback ruins the tourist trade by eating all the campers and fisherman that the hick hamlet makes its cash off of.<br /><br />Director/co-screenwriter William R. Stromberg displays a wonderfully woeful and thoroughly clueless incompetence when it comes to pacing, atmosphere, taut narrative construction and especially eliciting sound, credible acting from his hopelessly all-thumbs rank amateur community theater level cast. The performances are uniformly abysmal: Cardella is way too bland and wooden to cut it as a solid heroic lead while the pitifully dopey redneck comic antics of Roberts and Seigel provoke groans of slack-jawed disbelief -- you aren't laughing with these two atrociously mugging clods so much as at them, particularly when the insufferable imbeciles discover a severed head bobbing up and down in the murky lake water. Better yet, a clumsily integrated sub-plot concerning a vicious on-the-loose criminal leads to a spectacularly ham-fisted supermarket hold-up scene which degenerates into a hilariously stupid mini-massacre when a young lady shopper interrupts the stick-up artist in mid-robbery! A subsequent car chase is likewise severely bungled as well; it's so limply staged and unimpressive that one feels more relieved than scared when the monster abruptly pops up to devour the nefarious fugitive. Moreover, David Allen's funky herky-jerky stop motion animation dinosaur is the authentic gnarly article, projecting a certain raw charisma, sneaky reptilian personality and overall forceful screen presence which makes all the horrendously underwhelming human characters seem like pathetically unbecoming nobody bores in comparison. And as for the rousing conclusion where the sheriff takes on our slavering beastie with a bulldozer, the operative word for this thrilling confrontation is boffo all the way.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
When I saw it for the first time I was really impressed.The director made such a mysterious atmosphere, especially in the end. Through all the story spectators can expect that Richard will really kill Thomas or he will do it first.But..the main point was not conflict but..FRIENDSHIP!Older and mature one prayed himself to save the younger who has the whole life to life.It is amazing. Every time I watch it I enjoy!Of course it is pretty violent like every action movie but I think it is acceptable. Thanks a lot Louis Liosa and Tom Berenger! Amazing film!I advice everyone to see it.I am sure people wont regret and will really have a good time.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
Some might scoff, but there is actually a real art with making particularly bad films. This misses out on all fronts.<br /><br />A bunch of young people -- women with heaving breasts and continuously wet T-Shirts, naturally -- go to film "blood surfing" and end up running into a 31 foot crocodile.<br /><br />Not only was the croc obviously fake, but some of the props [notice the boat hitting the reef in particular] look like they've come out of thunderbirds!<br /><br />No good, from start to finish. Don't see it!
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
You talking' to Me? (1987) is a pretty bad movie starring some dude who I have never seen before or since starring as a guy from the neighborhood who tries to become an actor. He has a heavy jones for Taxi Driver as tries to use that shtick to make it big. When he learns the hard facts of life, he does what everyone else does, changes his image! He goes from good fella to a surf's up dude over night. His friend can't believe the change (but he scores with Faith Ford and get's a cool paying gig). Can this young punk keep his street cred whilst making it big?<br /><br />This is a real lame movie that tries too hard to incorporate too many things at once. An interesting idea that falls apart due to poor execution. Who knows, maybe somebody will pick up the ball and run because the film makers fumbled the ball this time.<br /><br />Don't waste your time with this movie. Unless you want to see a hot Faith Ford and a young Bubba from Forest Gump.<br /><br />xx
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
The first time I ever saw this movie was back in the 1980s as a wee lad. My dad actually recorded it off the TV. I must have watched is over 20 times, before the relatively recent release on DVD.<br /><br />I of course bought and watched the DVD and was taken aback by how much the dialogue had changed. In the first version, which I still have on VHS, the mood of the film, thanks to the dialogue, was actually very dark. However the new version, featuring Van Der Beek et al, is more comic.<br /><br />To put it another way, it's like watching the original US release of Akira with that dub, before watching the remastered version with the literal translation of the Japanese.<br /><br />I'm in no way complaining, the story and quality of animation are not detracted from, but it does raise the question of whether Miyazaki intended for a lighter or darker narrative and theme in his film.....
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
The penultimate episode of Star Trek's third season is excellent and a highlight of the much maligned final season. Essentially, Spock, McCoy and Kirk beam down to Sarpeidon to find the planet's population completely missing except for the presence of a giant library and Mr. Atoz, the librarian. All 3 Trek characters soon accidentally walk into a time travel machine into different periods of Sarpeidon's past. Spock gives a convincing performance as an Ice Age Vulcan who falls in love for Zarabeth while Kirk reprises his unhappy experience with time travel--see the 'City on the Edge of Forever'--when he is accused of witchcraft and jailed before escaping and finding the doorway back in time to Sarpeidon's present. In the end, all 3 Trek characters are saved mere minutes before the Beta Niobe star around Sarpeidon goes supernova. The Enterprise warps away just as the star explodes.<br /><br />Ironically, as William Shatner notes in his book "Star Trek Memories," this show was the source of some dispute since Leonard Nimoy noticed that no reason was given in Lisette's script for the reason why Spock was behaving in such an emotional way. Nimoy relayed his misgivings here directly to the show's executive producer, Fred Freiberger, that Vulcans weren't supposed to fall in love. (p.272) However, Freiberger reasoned, the ice age setting allowed Spock to experience emotions since this was a time when Vulcans still had not evolved into their completely logical present state. This was a great example of improvisation on Freiberger's part to save a script which was far above average for this particular episode. While Shatner notes that the decline in script quality for the third season hurt Spock artistically since his character was forced to bray like a donkey in "Plato's Stepchildren," play music with Hippies in "the Way to Eden" or sometimes display emotion, the script here was more believable. Spock's acting here was excellent as Freiberger candidly admitted to Shatner. (p.272) The only obvious plot hole is the fact that since both Spock and McCoy travelled thousands of years back in time, McCoy too should have reverted to a more primitive human state, not just Spock. But this is a forgivable error considering the poor quality of many other season 3 shows, the brilliant Spock/McCoy performance and the originality of this script. Who could have imagined that the present inhabitants of Sarpeidon would escape their doomed planet's fate by travelling into their past? This is certainly what we came to expect from the best of 'Classic Trek'--a genuinely inspired story. <br /><br />Shatner, in 'Memories', named some of his best "unusual and high quality shows" of season 3 as The Enterprise Incident, Day of the Dove, Is there in Truth no Beauty, The Tholian Web, And the children Shall Lead and The Paradise Syndrome. (p.273) While my personal opinion is that 'And the children Shall Lead' is a very poor episode while 'Is there in Truth no Beauty' is problematic, "All Our Yesterdays" certainly belongs on the list of top season three Star Trek TOS films. I give a 9 out of 10 for 'All Our Yesterdays.'
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
Motocrossed was fun, but it wasn't that great. I guess I just didn't understand a lot of the Motocross racing "lingo" (and there was A LOT of that in the film)! The plot wasn't what I expected from the Disney Channel previews, so that could account for some of my disappointment.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
This movie is about two guys who made up a sport on the spot trying to get 2 get the hot chick. BASEketball becomes a nationwide sport. Joe Cooper (Trey Parker) is the beloved captain, but is hated when he loses the NBA to some other rival team. He meets the girl of his dreams Yasmine Bleeth, and in the end they kiss. the first time i saw this movie i wet my pants it was so funny. a definite must see for all comedy fans. If you love south park you'll love this! Maybe don't watch with kids it is bit inappropriate for little dudes. some duds give it 6 1/2 out of ten, i give it 11 out of ten. i like coop he rocks i gotta go bye bye thanks for reading this
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
This Santa movie starts off strange and I think Santa might be a pedo. Instead of the usual elf toy makers, this Santa has apparently kidnapped kids from all across the globe and makes them sing a bit like characters from "It's a Small World"! I guess there are no child labor laws on the weird astral plane on which he lives (it's apparently NOT the North Pole and not on Earth)!! None of these kids seem very happy and I kept wanting to see commandos break in and rescue the tykes, though I guess for some of the third world kids, these working conditions were perhaps an improvement over local sweatshops. I sure hope that all they do is sing and make toys.<br /><br />Then, the scene abruptly changes to Hell where lots and lots of demons dance about like they are in a Busby Berkeley musical. This fun in put to a stop by Satan who orders one of them, Pitch, to go to Earth to ruin Christmas!! Personally, I thought this movie already did that! The Devil and his imps are actually kind of cute--like Hot Stuff from the Harvey Comics but with cool evil goatees! Or, if you are Puerto Rican, like a vejigante mask with a goatee! <br /><br />Somehow a poverty-stricken Mexican kid named Lupita, a group of jerky kids who want to mug Santa and some rich kid are key battlegrounds for the Devil and Santa!! So, if the Prince of Darkness (not Donald Trump, it's the OTHER Prince of Darkness) can somehow make her steal and be bad, he'll 'win'--what, we don't really know! In fact, as they root her on, you get the impression that the film makers intend Santa to be Jesus--as he has all these great powers AND fights the Devil over kids' souls! Later, Santa meets with his friend, Merlin. He asks him to make him a special powder that makes people dream nice dreams. Considering how much Santa laughs in the film (like a demented chipmunk), I assume he must use this drug A LOT! He immediately goes to see a blacksmith who makes him a magic key that opens ALL doors. Considering he keeps kids as his personal 'assistants', this magic key thing worries me immensely! During Santa's Christmas Eve ride, you see Lupita behave like a little angel--one problem down. Santa then takes time out now to take care of the rich kid whose parents are selfish jerks. He gives them some sort of crazy cocktail which magically solves their problems--two problems solved. This is a rare case where alcohol/drugs HELP kids and solves problems! And as for the little muggers, he gives them coal! Frustrated with his losses to Santa, Pitch then tries to steal the sleigh (which is pulled by creepy animatronic deer). When this fails, he destroys Santa's stash of 'magic powder'! As a result, Santa can't become invisible to avoid dogs and gets treed. Uh, oh...how can Santa take a detour to the Betty Ford Clinic if he's stuck up a tree?! Will St. Nick get down from the tree and get the monkey off his back or will the devils win? If you care, tune in and see. However, be warned that the film is bat-crap crazy! <br /><br />Technically speaking, the film is yecchy. While it is in color, it's really gaudy. The music is mostly done on an organ--which, along with bad singing from the kids, produces perhaps the worst soundtrack I've heard in recent memory. And the story is just incomprehensible and very, very, very creepy. Devils and a Santa that kidnaps kids is just plain creep-tastic. It's a film you should NEVER show to kids but makes a great film to watch with friends so you can laugh at it from start to finish!
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
Bravo to Czechs, their once-powerful movie industry seems to awaken from post-Communist slumber.<br /><br />The Loners is a comedy done with all the elements you would expect to see in a modern "hollywood" production minus the garbage that seems to get attached to the genre over the past several years. Superb soundtrack, excellent visual editing, beautiful Prague cityscape, to mention but a few.<br /><br />The story is actually comprised of several sub-stories that frequently intertwain and overlap, an is in essence a collage of destinies, fates, desires... It follows a group of urban youth-to-mid-thirties people through a variety of situations ranging from daily life and leisure activities to careers and obsessions. And it IS hillarious. There's actually a point in the movie where the entire theatre I was in (about a 100 people in a small art gallery) laughed non-stop for about 40-50 seconds. How often do you experience that with modern hollywood productions?<br /><br />Although the entire main cast is excellent (especially the upcoming Macedonian star Labina Mitevska in the role of an immigrant facing the all-too-familiar hardships) I have to single out Jiri Machacek for his superbly believeable portrayal of Jakub, a constantly stoned bohemian whose brain is severely affected by the stuff he smokes landing him in a plethora of funny situations.<br /><br />Conclusion: don't miss this one! It's got a lot to offer.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
The makers of this fine film did a terrific job of getting you involved with the characters,as they suffered through this horrible ordeal.The horrific scene in the woods was done so superbly that you forget that these men were just actors,playing parts.I have never gotten so immersed in a film as I have this one.Burt Reynolds and Jon Voight were never better on screen,as well as fine performances by Ned Beatty,Ronny Cox,Bill McKinney,and though he appeared only briefly,James Dickey,the man who authored the book upon which the film is based,as the sheriff of Aintry.It is somewhat disturbing,and kids,of course,should be shielded from it,but this is great,dramatic cinema.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
1
|
sa
|
This starts off bad, what with the three women acting like simpering junior high school wussies sitting around giggling with their gin, endless cigarettes and a caramel chocolate treat for the one who tells the best 'man' story, and then it gets worse -=- spoiler alert =-= what with Andie's character falling for the young organ player who used to be her student when he was 14 (she's the headmistress of an English school, believe it or not), only to have him destroyed thanks to her bitch-from-hell 'girlfriend' . ..and then from there, it's basically unwatchable claptrap: she forgives her 'friend' and has the organ player's love child and the 3 women end up as they started, drinking more gin and smoking more cigarettes blah blah blah. Andie's character throws the caramel chocolates out in the street, in a pathetic attempt to symbolize growth. Have mercy.
|
[
"0. Negative",
"1. Positive",
"2.Neutral"
] |
0
|
sa
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.