id
int32 0
25k
| text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
int64 0
3
| Generalization
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
400 | Although this is generally a cheesy jungle-adventure movie, it does have some highlights - the settings are quite beautiful, and the pacing of the adventure is good. You won't be bored watching it.<br /><br />Keith is as breezy as possible playing the eponymous lead, an unabashedly drunk jungle guide shanghai'd into escorting rich boy Van Hoffman and his gorgeous wife Shower on a hunting expedition in cannibal country. He never takes things seriously . Shower is there as decoration and Keith makes extensive use of her - she doesn't really have to act much. She's not the only female to show off her body and the prurient aspects of the film make it about halfway to a T/A picture.<br /><br />There's nothing in this film that would draw specific attention to it, or away from it. Produced to be shlock, it succeeds without too much fuss. A good 2 AM cable programmer. | 2 | full_train |
401 | It looks like the brilliant team of Shonda Rhimes outsourced the writing of this one somewhere offshore, maybe to the MediocreLand? "PP" reminds me any one of the many tedious, promising at first but predictable within 1 season David Kelly flicks (Picket Fences, Ally McBeal, and now Boston Legal). The crazy cases they get are so outlandish, they barely evoke sympathy or sadness. And that's what actually makes good medical dramas tick - dramatic situations you are afraid of, "This could be me" sentiment. They are not funny either.<br /><br />The actors are quite good, but the plot lines are dead and cannot be brought back to live. I'm a therapist, and let me tell you - Amy Brennan plays the most unbelievably incompetent, unethical, untrained therapist. Whoever writes her stuff flunked the ethics and the transference/counter-transference courses in Stanford. Somebody should give them a Code of Ethics to read (the episode with the nose-bleeding wife and the therapist's involvement in it). No therapists are that bad.<br /><br />Women yearning for men who have moved on - had been done to death, we've all graduated "Sex and the City". Addison in her youthful aggression towards the guy she likes - very age-inappropriate, looks so unnatural on a woman over 40, and this otherwise talented actress doesn't believe it herself and doesn't deliver it very well. The only successful/palatable developments are Addison struggling with her decision to move to LA, and the "Voodoo Dr" and his coping with widowhood.<br /><br />This concept might work with a whole new writing team. | 2 | full_train |
402 | A story of amazing disinterest kills "The Psychic" over and over again. The characters and plot are completely uninteresting (as is Fulci's mad camera work, which is usually a redeeming factor in his films), and any grasp of suspense is nowhere to be found. It's padded out to an insufferable degree--by the end, you won't be clamoring with excitement but stricken with boredom (and, like me, maybe an uncontrollable urge to fall asleep). Jennifer O'Neill's performance deserves occupancy in a better movie. Fulci gorehounds beware--there's just not much going on in "The Psychic."<br /><br />3/10 | 2 | full_train |
403 | Well, as Goethe once said, there really isn't any point in trying to pass a negative judgement that aspires to be objective on "something that has had a great effect". "La Maman et La Putain" has surely passed into history as an influence on much of what's been done in France and elsewhere in the past thirty years and no one interested in the history of film, certainly, should be dissuaded from watching it. To express a purely subjective judgement, however, I feel compelled to disagree with almost every other review posted here and say to people: "Don't watch it; it's a waste of hours of your time that will just leave you feeling rather sick and angry." And by that I don't mean "sick and angry" about "the human condition" or anything so general and profound as that, because that is exactly the line that most critics have adopted in their fulsome praise of the film - "an ordeal to watch in its ruthless dissection of our emotional cowardice and cruelty" and so on - and, if it really managed to put across a universally or even broadly relevant message of this sort, then the director would have good reason to be satisfied with himself, however pessimistic his conclusions may be. My beef with the film is rather that I don't see this hours-long record of empty vanity and petty treachery as being justified or excused by any GENERALLY relevant message at all. All three main characters are deeply morally unattractive individuals: Alexandre to the greatest degree, of course, because we see by far the most of him and because he seldom shuts up for more than thirty seconds; Marie perhaps to the least degree, because we see the least of her. Alexandre's affected and pretentious monologues have a kind of amusement value, of course, but the amusement wears thin as one comes more and more clearly to realize that Jean-Pierre Léaud is most likely not even acting and that, with absurd remarks like "un homme beau comme un film de Nicholas Ray", he really was just reproducing word-for-word opinions that were accepted as authentic and profound by the milieu in which he, along with the director Eustache, had been living for about ten years by the time of the making of the film. I suppose if the tone of relentless superficiality and triviality had been sustained throughout 100% of the film, it might have worked as a long sardonic comedy about a particularly shallow, worthless and despicable post-'68 milieu. What made, however, this viewer at least extremely angry with the director was his granting of at least one lengthy scene each to Alexandre and Veronika in which we are clearly expected to empathize with and feel for them as if they shared a moral universe with us. If a man can get away with living in the flat of and professing to love one woman, sleeping (mostly in this very flat) with another, and running around Paris proposing marriage to yet a third, well, I suppose I can wish him the best of luck in the dog-eat-dog world he's chosen to create for himself. What I can't, however, in all conscience do is listen even for a moment to maudlin monologues from him in which he speaks about his "anxiety" and his "despair". The same goes double for the even more despicable Veronika, whom we are shown barging drunk into the apartment and even the bed shared by Marie and Alexandre and behaving there with an infantile inconsistency tantamount to the most savage and heartless cruelty. As I say, if "La Maman et La Putain" is intended to be nothing more nor other than a portrait of Alexandre, Veronika and Marie, three individuals whom any even halfway decent person would never admit into their company let alone their home, then I suppose there is a kind of legitimacy in praising the director for being "unflinching" (though why one should even feel like "flinching" once one had consciously opted to create such thoroughly repellent characters to filmically observe I can't imagine). The problem, however, is that the director is clearly convinced - and appears to have succeeded in convincing generations of critics - that Alexander, Veronika and Marie are somehow representative of human beings in general and of the limits of human beings' emotional capabilities. This latter idea, however, is arrant and offensive nonsense. There may indeed be an inherent fallibility and tendency to tragedy in human relations in general and sexual relations in particular. But the nature and degree of this fallibility and tendency to tragedy can only possibly be determined by people who make a sincere and serious effort to make such relations work. It surely needs no cinematic or authorial genius to convey to us the information that a man who behaves like Alexandre is going to end up hated, miserable, and alone, or that women who insist on expecting love from a man like Alexandre are going to end up disappointed and bitter. Watch "La Maman et La Putain" if you're historically interested in what passed for culture and human interaction in a certain post-'68 Parisian milieu which was probably, unfortunately, not restricted to just a few particularly anti-social types like these. But please don't make the mistake of believing that what is recorded here has any general relevance for humanity in the way that a film by Jean Renoir or Martin Scorsese might be argued to have. | 0 | full_train |
404 | Before writing this review, I went back and reread the reviews of others. This movie was a particular disappointment to me, since it features two of my favorite dancers, Gene Kelly and George Chakiris, boasts a score by the often wonderous Michel LeGrand ("Wuthering Heights," "Ice Station Zebra," "The Thomas Crowne Affair"). The dancing was stilted, unmotivated and unoriginal, the songs forgettable, the story a joke. Even the costuming was not particularly flattering. Only the photography correctly captured the proper mood and spirit. I'm glad other people enjoyed "The Young Girls of Rochefort," though I most certainly did not. | 2 | full_train |
405 | This film is a huge steaming pile. <br /><br />I have no idea why anyone felt that the Garland/Mason version needed to be redone, nor why Striesand would have been a first choice to star.<br /><br />For that matter, I have no idea why our people (Gay Americans) tend largely to regard Striesand as some kind of treasure. At least in my opinion, she had peaked professionally with with Funny Girl, and Bogdanovich's What's Up Doc. <br /><br />Do yourself a favor and rent the Judy classic, or even the original (a fine film in its own right), but please, Please, PLEASE skip this stinkpot! | 0 | full_train |
406 | I admired Rob Marshall for Chicago, but Memoirs of Geisha turns out to be yet another failure of combing western and Asian arts. Overall, the scene is beautiful, but after restless emphasis on exoticism-oriented scenes some might just find himself fed up with them. The excessive cherry blossom was, frankly, overdone. It's probably the cultural difference of perception here: the ultimate beauty is not the showy type, as truly beautiful geisha would not be the over westernised pumpkin in the movie. <br /><br />Some other comments have rightly mentioned the biggest flaws. As a Taiwanese, I have no doubt the actress are great. An actor/actress can play any kind of role when he/she can look like it. Gong Li is great, but the power of emotions that she showed in this movie had not been translated into Japanese style. All I saw was a bittersweet and jealous Chinese WOMAN. Michlle Yeoh, one of my favourtie actress, did not even LOOK LIKE a Japanese. Some comment has mentioned the peculiar delicate, feminine characteristics of Japanese women, with which I can't agree more. These are so delicate that I assume not even all modern Japanese actresses are eligible for the roles in Geisha, let alone the two Chinese and one Malaysian actress who grew up in different cultures and probably did not know Japanese culture that much.<br /><br />Geisha is a good shot for arousing the curiosity of American audiences. But it would be an insult for the movie itself and for art alike if the movie wins the Oscar for best costume, best director or best picture. | 2 | full_train |
407 | The tragedy is that this piece of rubbish was part of my curriculum while I was studying cinema. So imagine how I was forced to watch it in complete. Believe me going through hell is much much easier. Our professor told us that this is some film ???, but he never thought that we'd disagree or assume the apposite. I don't think that there is any gods on earth, we're only humans, so all the filmmakers, therefore they CAN make mistakes, bad movies.. Or very bad too. The main problem wasn't that art, by all means, is susceptible to endless points of view, but that a lot of people just don't get it, that every single human got his own genuine taste, his own opinion, hence what I suppose it the greatest movie ever made, can also be your worst one ever, and how that is right both ways, but how many people can understand this correctly?. So my professor believes in this movie, and simply I don't. However, the only way to evaluate this "thing" is by measuring it by its original intent to show us different kinds of old folk stories or whatever to catch on this society's mentality, imagination, and nature. To tell you the damn truth Mr. Pier Paolo Pasolini as the scriptwriter and the director made it too unbearable to watch in the first place. The movie is so UGLY. I can't stand this, so how about analyzing it, then discovering the potential beauty in it !! It's beyond your mind hideousness, and strangely not for the sake of the movie's case or anything, it's for the sake of the unstable vision of (Pasolini). His work is so primitive to underdeveloped extent. The deadly cinematic technique, the effective sense of silliness, and the incredible horribleness made everything obnoxious. Look at the atrocious acting, the unfruitful cinematography, the awfully poor sets, .. OH MY GOD I've got the nausea already. It can terminate your objectivity violently as watching this movie is one true pain like taking the wisdom tooth off by a blind doctor. There are dreadful nightmares which could be more merciful than this. So originally, how to continue THAT just to review it fairly ? Actually, you don't. As this very movie doesn't treat you fair at all. There is really memorable scene in here where some boys are peeing into the eye of the camera (!) I'm trying to connect some things like that with Pasolini's end as murdered. | 0 | full_train |
408 | As it is often the case, the impressive and explosive trailers of Asian films add up to nothing more than lackluster stories. Similar to Unleashed (which was great,) Dog Bite Dog tells a story where men are raised as ferocious savage dogs that carry out their master's bidding. The main characters, an emotionally undeveloped, amoral killer who is matched against an equally unstable police officer, are far from the common heroes and villains we often see. In fact, by the end, you lose track of who you're supposed to empathize with, failing to feel even the slightest emotion for either of the men whether that was the failure of the director or perhaps the underlining message he was trying to tell is up to you to decide.<br /><br />Although the beginning of the film was filled with intrigue and unpredictability, by the half-way point it slopped down to a humdrum story of survival and revenge. The suspense which was evident at first soon disappeared because of a grossly mismatched music score which brought down the potentially effective story telling. And in the end, you were left feeling that all that detailed background information and introspection of the main characters was somehow very unnecessary.<br /><br />On the plus side, the transition in story from point a to point b was quite atypical compared to US movies so those who aren't familiar with Asian films and are tired of Hollywood's predictability should check it out.<br /><br />The white balance seemed off throughout most of the film. It was like looking into a picture shot on fluorescent when it was supposed to be set on tungsten. Maybe I'm the only one, but it strained my eyes.<br /><br />The movie also enjoyed playing tricks on you an interesting build-up gave me hope for the slow moving story until it was diverted to a low budget, low speed chase scene. And just when you think you were going to get an unanswered indie ending with a mix of Shakespearean tragedy, you realize that it's not an ending at all, but rather a transition into a wacky country-music montage about peace and serenity.<br /><br />Throw in some grisly from-behind choke scenes, a moment of redemption unexpectedly brought back into savagery and back again the other way, Asians' fascination with bodily fluids and a horrible music score that didn't match the film, and you get the average bland Asian thriller.<br /><br />I just don't get why every fight scene was overlaid with clips of roaring lions
I thought they were supposed to symbolize dogs? Ultimately, in the end, we are reminded about a true killer that still lurks amongst us tetanus.<br /><br />4/10 | 2 | full_train |
409 | I found Horrorvision almost unwatchable. While only 70 minutes in length I still found myself hitting the fast forward button again and again. The acting was of the `if I scream and say ***k a lot I'm intense' school. And the story was at best a scenario that had yet to be fleshed out.<br /><br />While I never go to Full Moon for great film making I have never seen them produce as bad a piece of junk as this. | 0 | full_train |
410 | The films of UPA are surprisingly well rated on IMDb despite the fact that the animation quality is light-years behind that of Looney Toons, Disney and MGM at their prime. Sadly, due to rising costs in making pretty cartoons with high frame-rates and lovely backgrounds, the UPA style (which debuted about 1950) began to dominate in the late 50s and 60s. After all, the films were dirt cheap to make and they'd received several Oscars to "prove" that the cartoons were now mainstream. So as a result, lousy animation was becoming the norm and this trend wasn't reversed until the 1980s.<br /><br />This UPA film is one of the early ones. The characters are very simply drawn (any simpler and they would have used stick figures) and the backgrounds were ugly--simple line drawings with colors added in a very slap-dash manner (often with a sponge and rarely completely filling the items).<br /><br />As for the story, it's a jive story with a strong jazz style attitude. Some will love this, others will just find it very, very loud. It's the traditional "Frankie and Johnny" story and because of the shootings and all, it's probably not a great film for the kids. Heck, because of the animation and jazz, it's not a particularly good film for me, either! Some will read my review and no doubt think I am a crank (which I am, to a degree). However, I love animated films and a little of this minimalistic UPA style goes a very, very long way and you can't seriously consider them great works of art--just very, very quickly made cartoons. Ignore the Oscars and try watching some classic cartoons or something--anything else! | 0 | full_train |
411 | This film is roughly what it sounds like: a futuristic version of the Cinderella legend but with songs and (fairly tame) sex scenes! The film is not sure what it wants to be and pretty much ends up a mess. It's more expensive looking than most of director Al Adamson's films but it's not at the same budget level that viewers have come to expect from sci-fi films. The actors are pretty bad and unlike most Adamson films, there are no former big namers or B actors. Some of the music is OK but it's easy to see why Cinderella 2000 has been forgotten for so many years. | 2 | full_train |
412 | I discovered this movie on IFC, and I thought it would be interesting. For "tiny" love stories, some of the stories really dragged on in this movie. The fact that none of these women had names almost makes you suspect that the actresses were talking about their own real sex lives, including Kathy Baker and Alicia Witt. I have to admit, I want to start seeing some more romantic views of first sexual encounters again, like in "Strike!(1998)," when Odette Sinclair's acquaintances started asking about her presumed first time, and Tweety asked "Was it beautiful?"<br /><br />Some might think re-enactments and flashbacks would improve this movie. I think it would make things even worse. It doesn't necessarily have to be hardcore porn to get my attention, but somehow I just expected more. | 2 | full_train |
413 | "The house of the spirits" is quite awful. I live in South America, in a country that suffered a military dictatorship just like the one the movie tries to describe, and even though everyone knows movies may be far far away from reality, this particular movie treats viewers as both ignorant and stupid. Things are not so simple and linear as appears here, and of course political process are much more complicated and interesting that the plot in "The house...". If you can't show that complexity on screen is better not making a movie at all. There are a lot of examples of how can politics be seriously taken in cinema, without so many commonplaces. In some parts I felt that Carmen Miranda may appear within parrots and palm trees. When you talk about certain things you must be not only careful but respectful to your public's intelligence. | 2 | full_train |
414 | While I recently gave OPERATION PETTICOAT a positive review, I really didn't like this film even though it had so many similarities. Both were made just a few years apart, both starred Cary Grant and both were WWII comedies. However, the overall tone and style of the films were quite different. KISS HER FOR ME, overall, just seemed like a cheaper film--with poor writing, little energy and some VERY broad performances--even when compared to OPERATION PETTICOAT. I think that at least much of the blame for this lies in casting Jayne Mansfield. The combination of her ample talents and limited acting ability really made this A-budget film look like it came from a 3rd rate studio. Plus, there wasn't much chemistry or energy in pairing her with Cary Grant--an actor generally loved for his grace and class. It's sort of like pairing Sir Lawrence Olivier with Marjorie Main. | 2 | full_train |
415 | Where to begin? <br /><br />#1 Amitabh's son, played by Akshaye Khanna, is 30.<br /><br />Amitabh's been in prison for 33+ years... he<br /><br />A) Telepathically transmitted the sperm home?<br /><br />B) Asked a nice Pakistani guard to mail it for him?<br /><br />C) They allow conjugal visits in secret Pakistani Jails<br /><br />D) All of the above<br /><br />E) The producers were having a little too much bhang at<br /><br />the time they approved the script?<br /><br />#2) Amrita Rao (Yummm!) wants Khanna - he's yum, yum, yummy... and apparently he wants her - who wouldn't, right?!... But, when her dad gets ratted out, and then killed (I hardly think this is a 'spoiler' as you'd have to be brain-dead and blind not to see this coming in the film) he's pretty emotionless towards this catastrophe and with the tip (metaphorically) of his hat, leaves her behind to save his dad, never mind her loss, and says (paraphrasing) "If god wills it, we'll meet again"... Basically meaning, "I'm gonna get my dad and MY job done, sorry for your loss - CYA! Buh Bye!" - callus beyond even low-life Hollywood standards...<br /><br />#3) There are so many holes in this horrible waste of time called a movie, that you can drive all the jeeps, trucks camels and any extra stuff through it. Pass - really, complete and total waste of time - Oh! There is a great dance sequence (yes, only one - as in dance sequence - regardless of quality) great belly dancing - but NOT worth watching just for this.<br /><br />Rent Veer-Zaara or Lakshya (will Hrithik Roshan ever take acting lessons?) for better Indo-Pak conflict movies... In fact, Veer-Zaara is pretty damned good - 7.5/8 I'd say! | 0 | full_train |
416 | This movie was a disappointment. I was looking forward to seeing a good movie. I am the type of person who starts a movie and doesn't turn it off until the end, but I was forcing myself not to turn it off. <br /><br />Theonly reason why I didn't turn it off was because I am a huge Christian Slater fan and I wanted to see him act in it. I was really speechless after I finished watching the movie. <br /><br />This movie was one of the worst movies that I have seen in my life. Thank you Christian Slater for putting some humor into it. If you hadn't been in this movie I would of been bored out of my mind.<br /><br />I also agree that Anthony Hopkins needs to stick to acting. By the time the movie was over I didn't even get the plot. I was both confused and annoyed. | 0 | full_train |
417 | This film was probably inspired by Godard's Masculin, féminin and I urge you to see that film instead.<br /><br />The film has two strong elements and those are, (1) the realistic acting (2) the impressive, undeservedly good, photo. Apart from that, what strikes me most is the endless stream of silliness. Lena Nyman has to be most annoying actress in the world. She acts so stupid and with all the nudity in this film,...it's unattractive. Comparing to Godard's film, intellectuality has been replaced with stupidity. Without going too far on this subject, I would say that follows from the difference in ideals between the French and the Swedish society.<br /><br />A movie of its time, and place. 2/10. | 0 | full_train |
418 | Okay, I've tried and I've tried, but I STILL DON'T GET this Guy Maddin thing. Tales From the Gimli Hospital left me cold, that movie about the Austrian villagers and the one about the Ice Nymph were pretty to look but lacking in the story department...and this nudie movie about abortion and hockey is just boring. I'm glad Maddin has an appreciation for silent film, but I dislike his films for the same reason I dislike the films of Quentin Tarantino: they're empty homages to better, more imaginative films--films that advanced the art form or broke new ground--and are all style and no substance. No amount of jump cuts and odd camera angles can disguise the fact that Maddin is an unoriginal David Lynch wannabe, though he DOES have one advantage over Tarantino: he generally doesn't write embarrassing dialogue, because most of his films rely on intertitles. The bottom line is, Maddin's schtick is clever clever film-making for aspiring film majors. | 0 | full_train |
419 | A gave it a "2" instead of a "1" (awful) because there is no denying that many of the visuals were stunning, a lot of talent went into the special effects and artwork. But that wasn't enough to save it.<br /><br />The "sepia" toned, washed out colors sort of thing has been done before many times in other movies. Nothing new there. I can see there were some hat-tips to other old, classic movies. OK. No problem with that.<br /><br />But a movie has got to be entertaining and interesting, not something that would put you to sleep.<br /><br />The story line and the script of this movie WAS awful, the characters two dimensional. Slow moving. Some of the scenes were pretty to look at, but ultimately, as a whole, it was quite boring, I couldn't recommend it. | 0 | full_train |
420 | I borrowed this movie because not only because its gay theme but the thought of role playing really intrigued me. I was pleasantly surprised that it was shot in San Francisco since I live near SF. And of course it was nice to see shots of the Castro district (although the castro to me really caters more to gay male than female). But other than that I can't really recommend this movie. The characters aren't really developed for me to care and when they finally started to get to the "role playing" I was already bored out of my mind. And the role playing scenes that I did see were a bit embarrassing to watch. The acting leaves something to be desired. Needless to say I didn't finish the movie. I'd skip this one. | 0 | full_train |
421 | This film can be judged from three viewpoints: as history, as a profile of Amin, as a fictional thriller. <br /><br />It fails as history, it mentions in passing the coup that threw out Obote, the expulsion of the Asians, and has the Entebbe hi-jack as background, but not in any chronologically consistent time frame. <br /><br />As a profile of Amin it may have been interesting, because Forest Whitaker is incredibly good, and if this was a better film, he would get an Oscar. (He got it - which proves the Oscar voters don't watch the films they vote on.) It ignores relevant historical episodes in the novel, which observed Amin and the history of Uganda from the point of view of the doctor. It tells instead the fictitious story of the Scots doctor and his impossible love life from the point of view of Amin. But the story told is the one incident that Amin was probably innocent of. <br /><br />As a fictional thriller, there is no plot to hold it together. The beginning is taut - it takes cinematic liberties with the novel, but sets up the story. The character of the doctor is well-defined, but becomes lost in the second half of the film which suffers as a result.<br /><br />Why the doctor decides to stay in Kampala is badly explained - seduced by power? Why he befriends no-one is strange. The character of the friend in the novel has been lost because the Scotsman has the affair instead of the black doctor - a ludicrous entanglement which does not seem even faintly believable, but allows the writers of the film to show the ferocity of Amin close at hand. The Man called Horse bit at the end is risible. <br /><br />Finally in 1971, Uganda drove on the left, not right, the number plates were three letters and two or three numbers - and where are the Equator tusks?! <br /><br />In short - if you've never heard of Amin, you may want to spend two hours watching this film to appreciate Forest Whitaker's acting, but the last hour will bore you to confusion. If you know Uganda or have read the book - don't see the film - it will only depress you. And if you want to know why the doctor was so foolhardy - he wasn't. | 2 | full_train |
422 | This has to be one of the 5 worst movies ever made. The plot looked intriguing like that of Passenger 57. But with the latter movie it somehow worked a lot better. The plot has been worked out in the worst possible way. Just a few of the awful moments in the movie, A flight attendant is standing in the opened doorway of a flying 747 and trying to close the door without being sucked out by the 250 mile per hour winds?!? Thereafter the lands the aircraft from a few miles out starting at 8000 feet, thats impossible even for 747 pilots with thousands of hour experience. When on the runway (perfectly straight of course) she is instructed to pull on the flaps, HUH!! Come on flaps are there to ensure lift at low speeds, when on the runway you use thrust reverse on the engines and give maximum power! I can go on and on about little and mostly big mistakes in the movie, but then my reply would become the size of the English dictionary. This is a movie you want to miss, take my word for it! | 0 | full_train |
423 | I hated this show when I was a kid. That was back in the day when kids show characters actually had accents, not just the bland, generic, General American Dialect we're used to. Jack Wild had a British accent and Pufnstuf's was southern. Like one of the others mentioned, though, I never quite understood what the deal was with the witch wanting the flute. That always seemed odd to me, probably because the flute just annoyed me and I wouldn't have gone to any trouble to take it away!<br /><br />Just a comment on the similarity of Pufnstuf to early 70s McDonalds commercials that others have mentioned: Pufnstuf ripped off McDonalds. At the height of McDonalds popularity, the TV show (or rather, their creators) sought to license McDonalds characters for their show, but when McDonalds declined the TV show changed the characters slightly and passed it as their own. They even hired former employees of McDonalds ad agency and the voice actors to make the TV shows. McDonalds sued and won. Search for Pufnstuf McDonaldland lawsuit and you'll find plenty of articles about it. | 0 | full_train |
424 | This is one of the few episodes (if not the only one) with an indisputable error in its storytelling. While handling the Ralphie situation Christopher states that he has heard about Pie-O-My's death in the fire accident. This is an important detail because in this context it is quite obvious that Christopher knows from the beginning that Tony is the one who must have killed Ralphie. There is however no way Chris could have heard about the accident. Who should have told him and when? By the time he is torn out of his delirium by Tony's call nobody else was informed. Tony knows that - which makes it even worse! Hearing Christopher talk about Pie- O-My's death could therefore only lead Tony to the conclusion that Chris himself has set the fire. Given the impressively elaborate writing process as told by the writers themselves on the DVD I really wonder none of them realized the problem there. The story just doesn't work that way. Unnecessary to add that I'm a huge fan of the Sopranos. Otherwise, I certainly wouldn't care. | 2 | full_train |
425 | For the initial 20 minutes or so (I was watching it on a PS2 so I've really no idea how long it took) Alienator sets up an interesting premise. I don't think I've seen a slasher movie with an alien from another planet as the baddie before. However, interest soon turns into stunned disbelief as you realise the 'alien' is a huge body-builder woman in a steel bikini. Yes, Alienator is patently ridiculous.<br /><br />Don't think I hold that against it. In the world of shlock-horror, patently ridiculous can often be a good sign. However, the blatant stupidity of its premise is all the movie really has going for it. Alienator is funny as hell, but it is also a shambolic suckfest of the highest order. Actors heap on failed attempts at seriousness, potentially genius lines of pure cheese dialogue are stumbled over with unnerving incompetence and the direction fails to sum up even one or two decent set-pieces. By the time the movie's finished you can barely see the original concept through the haystack of total tripe the team piled on it.<br /><br />Add to this the fact that the 'Alien' just kills people by vaporising them, as opposed to doing any 'slashing' as such and you have a giant throbbing heap of good ideas being left to rot. You'll laugh at Alienator, but AT it, not with it. If that's your thing then go ahead and check it out. | 0 | full_train |
426 | If you can imagine Mickey Mouse as a New York street pimp, or John Wayne as a Communist spy, then you might believe Pat Boone as a juvenile delinquent on his uncle's farm in Kentucky and you could conceivably enjoy this movie.<br /><br />This film is so stupid that it isn't even campy for a mid 1950s sexless love story. And the problem is that Hollywood made such a big deal about Pat Boone's refusal to kiss a woman not his wife on screen before its release that the audience knows he won't kiss Shirley Jones so you cannot build any anticipation for the "screen consummation" of their love. It's sort of like watching a western in which the cowboys don't have guns.<br /><br />The story is pointless. Even the title song is sung with pained enthusiasm.<br /><br />April Love belongs in the worst film bargain bin along with Ishtar and Plan 9 from Outer Space. | 0 | full_train |
427 | I've seen my fair share of badly thought-out endings and final twists to films, but I don't recall any film that committed outright suicide like this one did.<br /><br />The film makers were clearly hoping that the great twist would 'surprise' us all.... and it did, but perhaps not in the way the directors had hoped. I was left feeling surprised that Connery, Harris, Fishburn and Capshaw had anything to do with this turkey, individually or collectively.<br /><br />The film up until the final thirty minutes was rather engaging and I like the way the story was unfolding and the nature of the film overall. But once the twist was revealed, the plot holes and inconsistencies were remarkable, the underlying motive for revenge was ill-conceived and the ways things so neatly worked out for Bobby Earl was ridiculously far-fetched. What's worse is that, once the twist was revealed, the remainder of the film became excruciatingly predictable.<br /><br />Harris gave a terrific performance and Connery is like Morgan Freeman in that he never gives a bad performance, even if the movie ain't that great! So all in all, it starts well and the unfolding keeps the viewer interested. The last 30 minutes is one of the most memorable nose dives in the history of cinema. | 2 | full_train |
428 | I'm hearing rumors of an upcoming "Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the Blu-ray Disc". With advances over the past 25 years ranging from Steady-cam to CGI, it'll be interesting to see if the franchise can be reinvigorated. I just hope it helps to remove the bad taste left in my mouth by that whole Magnavision demonstration fiasco.<br /><br />And yes... "Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the Betamax VCR" was a brilliant milestone in entertainment history. After the tentative "Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the Compact Cassette" and the downright tacky "Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the 8-Track Tape", who would have expected such a glorious piece of cinema? I'm weeping right now just thinking about it. | 0 | full_train |
429 | "Sundown:The Vampire in Retreat" is a rubbish.The acting is terrible,the atmosphere is non-existent and the characters are uninteresting.The only scary thing about this piece of scum is that majority of the IMDb users gave it a 10.This is really horrifying.No gore,no suspense,no violence,nothing.Bruce Cambell("The Evil Dead","Intruder")is completely wasted,the supporting cast is also terrible.Yes,some people may like this picture,especially a mainstream society but hard-core horror fans or gore-hounds won't enjoy this piece of crap.Personally I hate horror comedies,I prefer watching serious horror movies like "Cannibal Holocaust" or "Last House on the Left".In my opinion,a real horror movie is supposed to be scary,excessively bloody and disturbing,without stupid humour,which usually ruins the whole concept.This one isn't scary,isn't gory,isn't even funny as a comedy,so don't waste your precious time. | 0 | full_train |
430 | Without question, the worst ELVIS film ever made. The movie portrays all Indians as drunk, stupid, and lazy. Watch ELVIS's skin change color throughout the film. | 0 | full_train |
431 | Roy Rogers stars as Jesse James and his look-alike, gambler man Clint Burns. George "Gabby" Hayes is Mr. Rogers's ex-pal, Sheriff Gabby. Gale Storm (Jane Fillmore) and Sally Payne (Polly Morgan) are a noteworthy team, as two reporters on the lookout for stories about the elusive outlaw hero.<br /><br />Of course, mistaken identity / impersonation is a plot development, since Rogers essays a "dual role". Rogers is charming, as usual; but, there is nothing really elevating this his performance above the ordinary - any potential to deliver a memorable Jekyll/Hyde performance is done in by poor material. The better pair to watch are Ms. Storm and Ms. Paye as the St. Louis Journal reporters - they are the film's highlight. The songs are fine, though badly synched. <br /><br />*** Jesse James at Bay (1941) Joseph Kane ~ Roy Rogers, George 'Gabby' Hayes, Gale Storm | 2 | full_train |
432 | I wanted to like Magnolia. The plot reminded me of Grand Canyon (which I liked). 4 different lives/stories that come together at the end but Magnolia took a wrong turn halfway through the movie and I was lost. I almost turned it off right then and there but I felt I should hang in there until the end, little did I know it would be another torturous 1 1/2 hours. Thank god I rented instead of seeing it in the theatre. I almost screamed out in frustration after 2 hours. The biggest kick in the pants was the ending frog scene. My DVD player still hasn't forgiven me and I don't blame it one bit. It was a unique movie, but a bad, boring, and pointless movie. | 2 | full_train |
433 | The spoilers in this review are offered as a public service, because the only way to enjoy this costume melodrama is to know that our protagonist, the Lady Barbara Skelton, gets raped and gunned down in the end. And not a moment too soon. I'd have shot the screen myself but I was afraid I'd hit James Mason.<br /><br />The original 1943 novel, called "The Life and Death of the Wicked Lady Skelton" (I guess people didn't whine about spoilers back then), was written by a woman, an English navy brat who was either troubled or cynical or both. Her heroine is devastatingly beautiful, and the author seems to think that if you have beauty, nothing else matters. But other things do matter, such as the fact that Lady Barbara's immediate and only response when someone gets in her way is homicide. She murders three men in five attempts. A serial femme fatale, she's got a case of dissocial personality disorder that should have landed her in either Bedlam or Newgate. <br /><br />Lockwood plays her as a narcissistic vamp, wearing so much makeup that I thought of her as a Restoration-era Joan Rivers (or a restoration-era Joan Rivers, ha!). Yet Lady B. is irresistible to all three principal male characters-- Michael Rennie, James Mason, and Griffith Jones, all of whom do good work, as does Patricia Roc. Of course, all three admirers realize in short order what a psychotic bitch Barbara is, but the plot keeps them all in her orbit until one of them finally does gun her down - accidentally, in what is meant to be either irony or just desserts. Given the dramatic death scene with a boom lifting the camera out through the windows and heavenward, I presume we're meant to give a damn about her death. But hers is the first corpse we don't care about. | 2 | full_train |
434 | You do realize that you've been watching the EXACT SAME SHOW for eight years, right? I could understand the initial curiosity of seeing strangers co-exist on an Island, but you'd think that after watching unkempt, stink-ladened heroes run roughshod through the bush with an egg on a spoon for half a decade would be enough to get you to commit to something a little more original (and interesting).<br /><br />And I'm not even speaking of the shows validity which for the record I find questionable. It's just hard to suspend disbelief for "Bushy Bill" eating a rat when the entire crew of producers and camera people are housed in an air conditioned make-shift bio-dome sipping frosty mochcinno's with moxy.<br /><br />What's the appeal here? I don't care about these people or their meandering lives. I just don't get it. But if you DO find yourself being captivated by hairy, unwashed people, I suggest you turn off your TV and just take a trip to your local bus station where you can see people like this in their TRUE habitat. They call them HOMELESS PEOPLE, and free of charge, you can sit back and marvel in their uncanny ability to retrieve various cigarette debris from a plethora of garbage canisters, eventually striking "pay-dirt" and fashioning a homemade Dr. Frankenstein-styled cancer-stick, all the while begging people for change for food when the stink of "Aqua Velva" on their breath is enough to suggest otherwise. And the best part? Much like Survivor, every week one member of the tribe "Leaves" the "Island" when they are unceremoniously sent packing to the local Institution when the frightening unmedicated state of full-blown schizophrenia kicks into gear! Now THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT! | 2 | full_train |
435 | My girlfriend once brought around The Zombie Chronicles for us to watch as a joke. Little did we realize the joke was on her for paying £1 for it. While watching this film I started to come up with things I would rather be doing than watching The Zombie Chronicles. These included:<br /><br />1) Drinking bleach 2) Rubbing sand in my eyes 3) Writing a letter to Brad Sykes and Garrett Clancy 4) Re-enacting the American civil war 5) Tax returns 6) GCSE Maths 7) Sex with an old lady.<br /><br />Garrett Clancy, aka Sgt. Ben Draper wrote this? The guy couldn't even dig a hole properly. The best ting he did was kick a door down (the best part of the film). This was the worst film I have ever seen, and I've seen White Noise: The Light. Never has a film had so many mistakes in it. My girlfriend left it here, so now I live with the shame of owning this piece of crap.<br /><br />News just in: Owen Wilson watched this film and tried to kill himself. Fact.<br /><br />DO NOT WATCH | 0 | full_train |
436 | i have to say that this was the worst film of priyadarshan(releasing alongside much better kyonki which was also his directorial venture) ,it contains no specific storyline and just focuses on body showing by debuting actresses and some silly comedy sequences. I think priyadarshan is becoming too much repetitive in his comedy flicks just like govinda and David dhavan had done in the past after giving some good entertainers they also went on to loose their audiences.So it will be good for him to concentrate more on script and try some variations in his direction.Give us more of herapheri's and malamal weekly's rather than giving duds like garam masala! | 2 | full_train |
437 | I am stunned to discover the amount of fans this show has. Haven't said that Friends was, at best an 'average' sitcom, and not as great as others have made out. Let's face it, if it wasn't for the casting of Courtney Cox Arquette, David Schwimmer, Matthew Perry, Lisa Kudrow, Jennifer Aniston and Matt Le Blanc, then who knows whether this show would've lasted as long as it has done. I very much doubt that. Although as the series progressed, Friends got more progressively predictable, lame and boring that I couldn't care less about the characters- of whom are the most overrated in TV history- or of their plight, nor of who was sleeping with whom. And it went from being funny in the first four seasons to occasionally funny. And even when it had all these A-list Hollywood actors from the movie world, I still didn't bother to tune in. The writing in Friends became stale that I lost interest in this show from the sixth season onwards and as for the ending, well it was predictable to say the least.<br /><br />What was annoying though was that this lasted for ten seasons, whilst some of my favourite shows lasted for only three, four seasons for instance and were eventually cancelled and taken off the air for good. The show should've came to an immediate halt by the time the cast wanted bigger salaries. In truth, as much as the series waned, it was the show that was bigger than the actors themselves, not the other way round. <br /><br />When it ended in 2004, I was so relieved to see the back of this sitcom. Now, there is talk of a friends reunion show coming to our TV screens very soon. And yet, I for one will not be looking forward to it whatsoever. | 2 | full_train |
438 | I have seen this movie and the other one. Trinity is my name and i find that this one is worse then the first one. I have no idea why they even made another movie it was stupid and pointless sorry to say that i have all of them. I have sat through them number of times and it still drives me to turn it off 5 minutes into the movie. I like Terence Hill movies and i like Bud Spencer but this movie just drove me up the wall. If it had a different story line or at least more of a plot and more comedy it might have been funner and worth the 5 dollars i spent buying all the movies. But you make mistakes so i would say save your money and don't bye this movie or any of the ones that go with it trust me on this one. | 0 | full_train |
439 | Distasteful, cliched thriller has young couple doing cross-country research on America's most infamous murder sites, becoming road partners with a dim-witted young woman and her snarling boyfriend--who is an actual psycho. Arty and alienating, the film's tone alternates between pouty pseudo-irony and silly flamboyance. Handsomely-made perhaps, but ultimately laughable. Brad Pitt's performance as the low-rent killer is godawful. * from **** | 0 | full_train |
440 | Well, maybe the PC version of this game was impressive. Maybe. I just finished playing the PS2 version and it's pretty much a complete mess.<br /><br />There are a couple elements that are okay or promising. I'll mention those first because it will be over quickly. First, the idea of a historical GTA-like game is a great one. The game Gun was a historical GTA-like game and unlike Mafia, Gun was excellent. I'd love to see a game set during Mafia's era done right. Next, the storyline is well written. The story makes sense, it has dramatic arcs, it uses an unusual device (with much of the game being a backstory) and it's interesting. Finally, some of the graphics--especially those used during cutscenes--are impressive. Mafia's designers seemed to focus on getting the graphics right in the places where GTA skimped on that effort, especially the characters. Unfortunately in many other areas, the graphics kinda stink, and I'd much rather have excellent gameplay than impressive-looking characters.<br /><br />The gameplay is what sinks this title so low. First off, the controls and camera absolutely suck. That has to be the first focus of any game developers. You can't release a game where the controls and/or camera suck. Number one, there's no reason that the player's character, Tom, can't have his full range of motion controlled by the left analog stick. Unless it's absolutely necessary, and it hardly ever is, I hate the set-up where the left stick moves the character in a "strafing" way and the character can only turn using the right analog stick. Here, it's not only unnecessary, it makes most of the simplest actions a challenge. For example, Tom has to climb on a couple missions. But the game is designed so poorly that you have to frustratingly keep manipulating both the right analog stick and the camera, and then press L1 every time you need to climb, or Tom will descend instead.<br /><br />Next, I've never seen a worse fighting system. The first problem is that you can't auto-aim or lock on to any targets. At one early point, the game seems to tell you that you can use L2 or R2 to lock on to targets, but that never worked. So to focus on any enemy, you have to struggle with the stupid right analog stick and try to keep adjusting both the character's orientation and the camera, which tends to drift to the wrong angle or make Tom disappear all the time. By that time, you're probably getting pummeled or shot to death.<br /><br />Next, if you're touching or almost touching an enemy--and that's certainly going to be the case for hand to hand combat or when using melee weapons, the fighting system--which primarily consists of tapping or holding R1, is completely useless. Enemies can pummel you almost in a bear hug, but you just can't move unless you back off. So close fighting tends to consist of you yanking on the left analog stick, yelling at the character to move away, which it won't do 50% of the time, then tapping R1 as much as you can before the enemy gets too close again and makes R1 useless. And if the enemy changes their angle to you in the meantime, you're also going to struggle with the right analog stick to get your character oriented in the right way and to get the camera in position so you can see anything. By that time, you're probably getting pummeled or shot again, and your only option will be to try to move the character away again. My fights often consisted of making Tom run circles around an area like a comedy film, hoping that I could gain enough time to struggle with the analog stick and get a couple shots in before being at the AI's mercy again. So much for realistic fighting.<br /><br />And the same problems and more exist when trying to fight with guns. If you're touching someone, half the time the controller just won't allow you to fire off a shot, yet they can still riddle you full of holes. Additionally, there's no auto-aim, and the aiming system is ridiculously sensitive, even with the sensitivity set to zero under Options. Gunfights tend to consist of you hopelessly trying to aim or move away while the enemy puts shot after shot into you. Luckily or not, damage seems to be recorded almost randomly. It can take one to ten shots or more to incapacitate any character, and there's no rhyme or reason to it. You can put five shots into an enemy's head and near point blank range and they'll still return fire and hurt you. Yet, the game designers seemed to care enough about realism than they built a recoil into your aiming system, so after shots with powerful enough guns, your aim will float off target, and you'll have to fight with it again.<br /><br />As for the celebrated graphics, except for the characters and textures that you're close to, they're actually pretty disappointing. The distance always seems mostly empty, and there are often expanses of flat colors and textures nearby when you're driving. The city wasn't very well designed. It's not varied enough, and there aren't many interesting things to see or do. The cars seem slow and they're difficult to control. They also all drive about the same. Some have mentioned the music, but that was also pretty nondescript. A much better job could have been done on that end. Also, as many others have mentioned, the load times are ridiculous and constant. They tend to be over a minute long, and they occur between and in the middle of everything--even races.<br /><br />Overall, the Mafia port to PS2, at least, seems to have been very rushed. The game feels and plays like an incomplete hack job. | 2 | full_train |
441 | Drones, ethnic drumming, bad synthesizer piping, children singing. The most patronizing "world music" imaginable. This is a tourist film, and a lousy one. What really kills it is the incoherent sequences. India, Egypt, South America, Africa, etc, etc. No transitions, no visual explanation of why we're suddenly ten thousand miles away, no ideas expressed in images. Just a bunch of footage of third-worlders with "baskets on their heads" as another reviewer said. Walking along endlessly as if that had some deep meaning. If these guys wanted to make a 3rd World music video, all they had to do was head a few hundred miles south of where the best parts of Koya were shot, and film in Mexico. That would have been a much better setting for "life in transformation."<br /><br />But no. What they decided on was a scrambled tourist itinerary covering half the globe and mind-deadeningly overcranked filter shots. The only thing to recommend this film is that it doesn't suck quite as much as Naqoyqatsi.<br /><br />RstJ | 0 | full_train |
442 | This movie is pretty awful but I have some interesting information about it:<br /><br />It was filmed in 1976 at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, AZ, as well as at Oak Creek Canyon near Sedona, AZ. A good bulk of the extras in the film are then-drama students from NAU. I was a freshman there that year, minoring in theatre, but for some reason I didn't get involved with the production. I did however know several people who did and can supply this rather odd fact:<br /><br />There is a scene in this movie where two of the principals, as part of their hazing ritual, have to run naked into the woods. They are seen from behind in the movie, doing just that. The thing is, those aren't the actors at all but two guys I knew from the theatre department. The identity of these "stunt posteriors" will remain anonymous, at least to this website, unless they decide to, um, "reveal" themselves! | 2 | full_train |
443 | This installment of Masters of Horror was terrible. Apparently, Mr. Carpenter needs to learn a thing or two about pacing and decent, plausible dialog. There were times when I literally shouted at the TV for something to happen. Maybe he thinks he building suspense, but Carpenter needs to trim back that overdone, over-simplified musical score of his (or his son's) and advance the action a little bit. How many times did the girl say, "Oh no, I can't have this baby!" and "Oh, no here it comes"? Carpenter takes elements from much, much better films (Assault on Precinct 13 and The Thing) and throws them in here as if we are supposed to acknowledge and appreciate his trademark style. What is lacking here is genuine suspense and energy. It's as though he's sleepwalking through the process of movie making. <br /><br />For better Carpenter films, stick to the tried and true classics-- The Thing, Halloween, and They Live. For better masters of horror episodes, check out my personal favorites: Family, Jenifer, and Dreams in the Witch House. | 0 | full_train |
444 | I bought this (it was only $3, ok?) under the title "Grey Matter". The novelty of seeing Sherriff Roscoe in a non-DukesOfHazzard role intrigued me. As the other reviewers warned, it's a pretty boring tale of a top secret government experiment gone awry.<br /><br />And yes, there are plenty of establishing shots, especially of a house with a pool in front of it. Some of the characters and interiors are so nondescript I guess the filmmakers worried we might forget who is who, so they keep tipping us off by first showing the outside of the buildings. It's actually kinda funny. After awhile the pool shot feels like a tv channel's station identification logo, reminding us that we are watching "Grey Matter".<br /><br />I also enjoyed two bouts of name-calling. At one point an angry test subject taunts somebody in charge by calling her a "Scientific b*tch!". It's just a very inadequate insult. Several scenes later a different subject lets off steam by muttering about that "scientific b**tard!". It just sounded very awkward to me.<br /><br />Someday this movie will disappear forever. Another decade from now it will likely be impossible to find any copies of it. Almost like it never happened.<br /><br /> | 2 | full_train |
445 | I loved "The Curse of Frankenstein" so much that I rushed out to get "Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed" to see Cushing at it again...even if it was without Chistopher Lee this time. To my great disappointment, this movie not only does without Lee, but it does without Frankenstein's Monster altogether! Was it a case of "If we can't get Lee, we won't have a monster at all"? Why would they do that? The monster is half the fun of the whole thing!! This film is dedicated solely to the study of Baron Frankenstein and his quest to finish experiments he had begun in brain transplants before ending up in an asylum. I found the script extremely weak, with the need to suspend disbelief forced upon the audience a little too much. I'm willing to suspend a fair amount, but this movie got fairly ridiculous, which took me out of the film rather than immersing me in it.<br /><br />Peter Cushing, though, is absolutely brilliant playing pure evil in this film. For being one of the most beloved actors and notoriously sweet men, he sure could play menacing and malevolent extremely well. The supporting cast is competent, but has little to do, even the young doctor and his fiancée blackmailed into helping Frankenstein. A bumbling police chief is introduced, along with his put-upon sidekick, to generate some comic relief, then they are completely dropped from the movie! Why? We are led to believe that the police chief will be the main nemesis of the Baron, then we are led to believe it will be the young doctor, and then it ends up being the victim of Frankenstein's brain transplant experiment. There was no tension, we weren't invested in the "creature", and the ending was left so ambiguous as to leave one unsatisfied because it is so clear they are setting up another sequel.<br /><br />Also, there are virtually no "horror" elements. Yes, there is a beheading in the beginning (off-camera), and we are treated to the sounds of Cushing cutting the tops of two men's skulls off (again, off camera), and there is the most unsettling and thoroughly unnecessary rape scene (90% of which is, again, off-camera). I understand that there is a love of "letting the audience imagine it all, for their imaginations are far worse than what we can show", but come on, if you're not going to give us a Monster, then at least let us SEE the few "horrific" elements you do choose to include. Showing us a skeleton in the lab lit with a green light is just not scary.<br /><br />On top of a weak script, I thought the directing was mostly flat. There were a couple of nice shots, but otherwise no excitement, atmosphere, or suspense was generated. The same director did "Curse" back in 1958 and I thought it was brilliantly directed...guess he was as uninspired by this film as I was.<br /><br />The movie gets a 4 out of 10 from me strictly for Peter Cushing's powerful, nuanced performance...beyond that, I found little in this movie worth recommending. Instead, my suggestion is to watch "The Curse of Frankenstein" and see a truly great Hammer horror film. | 2 | full_train |
446 | Angels who got a little icky were banned from heaven and now reside in a British forest where they seduce and chop up teens. Talk about high concept. On the plus side this little mother gives us Tom Savini, but since his acting range is limited to two minutes screen-time, his five minute presence seems a tad long. The angels run around the forest naked for the most part of the movie, but though they might have the body of an angel, their faces sure look like Joan Rivers on a bad day. Mediocre acting and amateurish gore-effects don't help and the night scenes fatally recall Paris Hilton's most famous movie. So bad that it is REALLY bad. | 0 | full_train |
447 | Even in a bad film, there is usually some redeeming feature, something that you can say yes it was terrible, but there was that performance, or that part of the script, or that special effect, this was just simply terrible all over. The acting was laughable, the script terrible, complete with many inexplicable Breakfast at Tiffany's references, and even the special effects were shoddy at best. This was a very bad film and one that even Drew Barrymore wishes was expunged from history. Watch it if you want to: a) Suffer harsh self inflicted pain. b) See just how bad a film can be. This is one film where I can use the cliché "there's ninety minutes of my life I will never get back" with some justification! | 0 | full_train |
448 | This guy has no idea of cinema. Okay, it seems he made a few interestig theater shows in his youth, and about two acceptable movies that had success more of political reasons cause they tricked the communist censorship. This all is very good, but look carefully: HE DOES NOT KNOW HIS JOB! The scenes are unbalanced, without proper start and and, with a disordered content and full of emptiness. He has nothing to say about the subject, so he over-licitates with violence, nakedness and gutter language. How is it possible to keep alive such a rotten corpse who never understood anything of cinematographic profession and art? Why don't they let him succumb in piece? | 0 | full_train |
449 | I do get irritated with modern adaptations of Shakespeare when the director can't make his mind up whether to use the original or to update it. If it's using the original words in an updated setting, that's particularly tricky if set in the 20th or 21st century although it can work OK in period styles, eg the Trevor Nunn Twelfth Night set late Victorian very effectively. It could work with the 30's setting if only there had been far less of the song and dance and far more of Shakespeare's text. Unfortunately, it just ends up being a pretty trivial though very pleasant show. <br /><br />Another problem is Branagh himself. I agree he's far too old to play one of the students but more important, he's such an experienced Shakespearean actor that in spite of all his efforts to be just another student, his strength of acting shows all the time. Of course he should have played the King - no problem in having a mature student King surrounded by younger students. Instead we had a pleasant but unimposing actor for the King, thus an unimposing so-called King with no Kingly attributes. <br /><br />The amount of song and dance, which I found tedious in spite of the nice songs and pleasant enough dancing, unfortunately meant the great Shakespearean dialogue had to be cut down drastically. So the whole thing ends up a trivial and mild confection, and I got very bored, including with the comic turns, and was glad when it ended. Branagh has not done Shakespeare justice in this production.<br /><br />Accolades however to Richard Briers and Geraldine McEwan, absolutely splendid as the older couple. | 2 | full_train |
450 | Although I use this site quite frequently to see how other people rated what I think are challenging or just plain enjoyable films, after watching this "movie" on Film Four last night I felt compelled to write something down, even if it just helps cleanse me once again.<br /><br />The film was possibly the shallowest experience I've ever had - the main characters played by Danny Dyer (23? You sure?) and Gillian Anderson (who will always be Scully as Leonard Nimoy will always be Spock) had no real substance about them - I'm not sure if the first half-hour of the film didn't make the final cut but surely in a revenge movie you would like some empathy with the victims... here I couldn't care less. In fact, the only character I did seem to care about was the dog, with the stag coming a close second. And both animals out-acted Dire (sic) and Scully, who were quite frankly terrible. I guess though you're only as good as the script you are given, and I'd like to warmly thank the writers, the producers, the director and all of the cast for wasting 90 minutes of my life and some perfectly good electricity. | 0 | full_train |
451 | A film without conscience. Drifter agrees to kill a man for a mobster for money. Then they double cross him. Meanwhile he falls in love with the dead man's wife, and, without her knowing he's the killer, moves in with her. Then he "accidentally" kills her when she finds out. Then, in a WALKING TALL kind of heroism, he gets revenge on the mobsters who double crossed him. The first problem is that, by agreeing to take on the murder by hire assignment, the drifter loses all sense of sympathy, worthiness, and heroism. We can't accept any goodness in him and as a result the rest of the has no moral center. We just can't care about that kind of guy. And the wife (nicely played by the fetching Kari Wuhrer - the sheriff in EIGHT LEGGED FREAKS), a high class lady who runs a mission for homeless people, similarly loses a degree of sympathy by jumping right into bed with the homeless drifter (despite her evidently weakened state after the death of her husband). And, when she finds out he's the guy what does she do? She locks him inside her house (as if ALL houses had locks you can't open from INSIDE) with her and proceeds to berate him. Stoo-pid. George Wendt, however, is terrific in a role as a beefy thug. Director Stuart Gordon did so much better with RE-ANIMATOR and DAGON. | 2 | full_train |
452 | ...but I regret having seen it. Since the ratings on IMDb are relatively high (and they must also have been relatively high on Netflix), I guess I put it in my queue because it is advertised as a gentle comedy from the UK, a category that has produced many films I liked immensely. "Saving Grace," on the other hand, falls into the category of laugh-less comedies usually populated by Hollywood movies produced and directed by the talentless. Brenda Blethyn is a capable actress, and I have liked her in other movies. The concept -- a gardener growing marijuana to overcome the penury she finds herself confronting after her husband's death -- does not offend me. Notwithstanding the strenuous efforts on the part of the cast to produce humor, the film falls flat on its face (falling flat on its arse might have been funnier) as far as I and my wife were concerned. Be forewarned, oh gentle reader, not all offbeat British comedies succeed. This one is a dud. | 2 | full_train |
453 | I have to be completely honest in saying first that I fell asleep somewhere in the middle, so I cannot give a full opinion about the film until I see it in full. Basically, a group of thieves, including Sid Carter (Sid James) and Ernie Bragg (Bernard Bresslaw), plan to make a fortune stealing a shipment of contraceptive pills from Finisham maternity hospital. This is where title character Matron (Hattie Jacques) works, along with staff members Sir Bernard Cutting (Kenneth Williams), Dr. Francis Goode (Charles Hawtrey), Dr. Prodd (Terry Scott) and Nurse Susan Ball (Barbara Windsor). Patients and their visitors are around too, including pregnant Mrs. Tidey (Joan Sims) and her nervous dad-to-be husband Mr. Tidey (Kenneth Connor). Also starring Bill Maynard as Freddy and EastEnders' Wendy Richard as Miss Willing. This plan by the way is not working out by the way, because all the staff are getting in the way. That's pretty much all can say about the film until I see it again in full. Okay! | 2 | full_train |
454 | Was this movie stupid? Yup. Did this movie depth? Nope. Character development? Nope. Plot twists? Nope. This was simply a movie about a highly-fictionalized Springer show. It shows the lengths that some people will go to get their mugs on TV. Molly Hagan did a great job as Jaime Pressly's mom. Jaime is....well...GORGEOUS! This flick wasn't so much made to be a "breakthrough" movie, rather, it was intended to life in a trailer park (I live in a trailer park and ours is nothing like the one in this movie) where everyone sleeps with everyone else, all the girls get pregnant by different guys, and all the guys drive rusted-out '66 Ford pickups (exaggeration, of course, but that's the picture everyone sees when you mention "trailer park"). Some people over-analyze movies (case-in-point: Star Trek freaks). I watch movies purely for the entertainment value; not to point out that the girl is wearing a different shirt in a different scene (read the "Goofs" bit about Connie's shirt. Could it have been better? Sure. But it was funny as hell. | 2 | full_train |
455 | This is it. This is the one. This is the worst movie ever made. Ever. It beats everything. I have never seen worse. Retire the trophy and give it to these people.....there's just no comparison.<br /><br />Even three days after watching this (for some reason I still don't know why) I cannot believe how insanely horrific this movie is/was. Its so bad. So far from anything that could be considered a movie, a story or anything that should have ever been created and brought into our existence.<br /><br />This made me question whether or not humans are truly put on this earth to do good. It made me feel disgusted with ourselves and our progress as a species in this universe. This type of movie sincerely hurts us as a society. We should be ashamed. I really cannot emphasize that our global responsibility as people living here and creating art, is that we need to prevent the creation of these gross distortions of our reality for our own good. It's an embarrassment. I don't know how on earth any of these actors, writers, or the director of this film sleeps at night knowing that they had a role in making "Loaded". I don't know what type of disgusting monsters enjoy watching these types of movies.<br /><br />That being said, I love a good "bad" movie. I love Shark Attack 3, I love Bad Taste, they are HILARIOUS. I tell all my friends to see them because they are "bad".<br /><br />But this.......this crosses the line of "bad" into a whole new dimension. This is awkward bad. This is the bad where you know everything that is going to happen, every line, every action, every death, every sequence BEFORE they happen; and not just like a second or two before, I mean like, after watching the first 5 minutes before.<br /><br />Every cheesy editing "effect" is shamelessly used over and over again to a sickening point. I really never want to see the "shaky" camera "drug buzz rush" effect or jump cuts or swerve cuts or ANY FANCY CUT EVER AGAIN EVER. This is meticulously boring, repetitive and just tortures the audience.<br /><br />But.......and let me be specific here, the most DISTURBING thing about this movie is that given the production, it appears that a somewhat decent amount of money was actually put into this excrement. I personally will grab the shoulders of the director if I ever see him and shake him into submission, demanding that he run home and swallow two-gallons of Drain-O or I will do it for him.<br /><br />If we ever needed a new form of inhumane torture for our war prisoners abroad, just keep showing them this movie in a padded cell over and over again. Trust me, I think they will become more extravagant with suicide methods after the 72nd time of sitting through this.<br /><br />Stop these movies, they are just the most vile of all facets of our society. Please. Stop. NOW. | 0 | full_train |
456 | Evil Aliens owes a huge debt to Peter Jacksons early films Bad Taste and Braindead.I must confess to never enjoying those films particularly and i say the same about this.Jake West is a director who clearly lacks inspiration of his own and chooses to steal from those whom he looks up to.I lost count of the amount of times a major Hollywood film was quoted most notably James Camerons Aliens.The amount of blood and gore on show here isn't funny either,the latter end of the film becomes tired and dragged out.Maybe it would have worked better as a short film.The actors a poor,the direction is weak and the plot is non existent.I can see what the director was trying to do,the homage he was trying to pay,but others have done the same thing a lot better than presented here. 4/10 | 2 | full_train |
457 | "Pandemonium" is a horror movie spoof that comes off more stupid than funny. Believe me when I tell you, I love comedies. Especially comedy spoofs. "Airplane", "The Naked Gun" trilogy, "Blazing Saddles", "High Anxiety", and "Spaceballs" are some of my favorite comedies that spoof a particular genre. "Pandemonium" is not up there with those films. Most of the scenes in this movie had me sitting there in stunned silence because the movie wasn't all that funny. There are a few laughs in the film, but when you watch a comedy, you expect to laugh a lot more than a few times and that's all this film has going for it. Geez, "Scream" had more laughs than this film and that was more of a horror film. How bizarre is that?<br /><br />*1/2 (out of four) | 2 | full_train |
458 | I'm not saying that because the production values were so low, but because it was filmed terribly. That shot of the girl washing her hair in the creek? Did we really need to sit there for an overlong shot and watch her do that for 5 minutes in the same spot? It was terrible, the lighting was just plain bad. You could barely see anything and when the characters were talking, you could barely hear what they were saying. Did I watch the whole movie? Of course not I skipped through most of it, and I don't want to hear anyone say I need to watch the whole thing first to judge it. This film was so poorly done and executed that even by independent and low budget standards it's just plain terrible. Awful movie...don't waste any time on it unless you want a good laugh, but even then it's not because of the actors "funny" lines, it's because of how painstakingly bad the production is. | 0 | full_train |
459 | From beginning to end, this is the most emotionally overwrought movie about NOTHING I have ever seen. The characterizations and interactions between the title character and Marthe Kller's character are pure torture. The racetrack as metaphor gimmick is so overplayed that it borders on cliche, yet director Pollack treats every hairpin turn as if it were something profoundly important.<br /><br />Maybe there's some value for a MSFT3000 re-playing of some of the scenes, such as Pacino getting in touch with his inner female, for goof value. But, even such accidental humor is hard to find in this total turkey. | 0 | full_train |
460 | This was a watershed event in my movie watching life. I went to see this in the theater when it came out. I was completely amazed at just how bad it was. Movies like this make you wonder who put the money up and who owed whom a favor - a very, very large favor. The special effects are absolutely first grade level, as in any first grader could have done them. Toy rubber bats on strings with no attempt to hide the strings, arrows that appear to be drawn on the film and look to be the shape of an arrow you'd find on a street sign, and a laughable story line. Ed Wood made masterpieces compared to "Conquest". Every film student should see this thing just so they'll know the very definition of a bad movie. | 0 | full_train |
461 | ... or maybe it just IS this bad. The plot is a cheap rehash of the first, which is weird, since it's supposed to be a prequel, not a sequel. Pretty much the entire movie seems like a cheap remake of the first, with scenes mimicking the things that happened in the first, only a lot more ridiculous and unlikely. Where the first had a great cast, this one consist of B-list actors and rejects. The acting is mostly horrendously bad. Half of the good lines in the movie are taken directly from the first, as is nearly every major character, including the ones who weren't in the first movie. I realize this was made up by a TV series pilot episode, but that's no excuse. They didn't have to turn the (bad) footage into a movie. Only one thing is marginally good, and that's the erotic sequences. However, as these are nowhere near as good as the ones in the first, even this isn't raising it above a rating of 1. If you have a chance to see it for free, and you're a straight guy, it could be worth checking out, if you want something erotic that isn't porn. If not, avoid at all costs. 1/10 | 0 | full_train |
462 | When teenagers go on a trip in a camper van there are many clichés that you can guarantee will follow.<br /><br />1)The teenagers will be warned not to go where they are going by a crazy local. Dan Van Husen handles that with ridiculous exposition about deadly Sirens. What, who, how and why are handled in one almost unintelligible burst. 2)The van will break down. 3)Whilst looking for help the group will be split up and be picked off one by one by whatever monster they have been warned about.4)They will find a house inhabited by a madman, he will capture them. 5) The house will have a phone but it will not work, it will be disturbingly decorated, there will be flickering neon light, spiders and maggots. 6)The madman will catch them as they try to escape in a vehicle that won't start (here the high speed getaway was to be made on a tractor). 7)The madman will be seemingly killed only to come back from the dead for a cheap, weak scare and will then be killed properly. 8)Only a girl will be left alive from the group. 9)There will be an unnecessary twist at the end. <br /><br />Add to these elements naked Sirens (who the characters seem to react to in startling different ways despite the fact that everyone that sees them is supposed to fall into lust with them immediately) that seduce and kill the teens, throats being ripped out and bodies being pulled in half and you have something resembling a twelve year old boys dream movie.<br /><br />I think it is only fair to say that my opinion of the director and his previous work is as low as it is possible to be but I am happy to point out that there are a few elements that boarder on pleasurable and are a great improvement on his previous film, Darkhunters, which is one of the worst films I have ever seen. At times the cinematography is very good, the music and editing are a cut above his previous films and some other low budget horror movies. I was impressed to hear that it was achieved with a third of the money spent on the previous monstrosity. However, the worst things about this movie are not to be found in the body of the film, it is ultimately a mildly diverting if pointless movie that has been done time and time again, but amongst the DVD extras.<br /><br />If you do rent this film I implore you to listen to the director's commentary it is beyond belief. There is more to say about this than the film itself. One staggering part of the commentary is the director's claim that the film is cliché leaden because it was a preconceived idea. He says it is a deliberate attempt to use all of the clichés and openly he wonders if "people will get it". <br /><br />I'm afraid to say that if this is supposed to be a clever nod and a wink to films of the past and the genre clichés within them then it is not wittily scripted enough, acted in an appropriate tone nor directed with enough style to work. If this film was made to order it leads me to ask one question; "What was the point?" This is s afilm that just slips right into the canon of bad horror movies, any attempt to do something clever or different haven't worked.<br /><br />The next nugget of brilliance is a conversation about the snobbery towards digital film formats. They rightly point out that digital is often synonymous with cheapness and ease of use. However, the best moment of the conversation comes when they bemoan the fact that when Michael Mann makes a film in the format he is branded as a visionary. There is a simple distinction to be made here; Mann is a talented director who will use the format to fit his story and style, Roberts is a horror hack who uses it to produce bottom shelf genre pictures . I think the differences are obvious and the comparison is not only arrogant but redundant.<br /><br />The best moment is reserved for Robert's comments about people who have taken the time to review his previous film. Those who didn't like it are generalised as 'geeks' and he even goes as far as to single out specific people for having the nerve to voice their opinion in forums that encourage them to do just that. I must admit I was slightly disappointed that my review of his last film wasn't singled out for ridicule. The tirade goes further as the group joke about Norwegian reviewers, complete with 'hilarious' accents to imply that people from Norway wouldn't know a good film simply because of where they are born. As always these sorts of comments say more about those saying them than those they are targeting, they simply make the director and his friends look ignorant.<br /><br />The package in rounded out with a tasteful featurette about how the Sirens were cast. Robert's swears blind in voice over, 'I didn't want to make a film that was like Baywatch' as we see audition tapes of topless and naked girls writhing around on the ground. There is also a simpering, self-indulgent documentary about the making of Darkhunters during which Robert's says that a reviewer has claimed that Forest is "The best British film in years". I don't know who he is trying to convince. At one point in the commentary track Robert's says jokingly "I can see people sitting at home saying "this isn't amazing, its sh$t" he isn't wrong. | 0 | full_train |
463 | We purchased this series on DVD because of all of the glowing reviews we had seen here. I gave it three stars because there can be little doubt that sometimes the acting, directing and writing are brilliant. In fact they are so brilliant we did not see the propaganda that was being transmitted so smoothly on the series. If one watches it with discernment, one will see the entire litany of the radical right wing beliefs being promulgated by the Fox (Faux) News Network. To avoid giving away any spoilers I will refrain from pointing out all of the dozens of specific instances. A brief look at the plots found here on IMDb will disclose that everything from torture to gun control to the right of a network to provide "Infomercials" and call them news is justified with cute plot twists and impassioned speeches given by some of the best actors in the world. We watched many shows and finally gave up in disgust when they justified torture using Attorney General Gonzales as a shining example of why all kinds of torture should be used in the name of protecting all of us. The series also manages to demean male and female gays in subtle ways by using them as plot devices depicting evil people. All in all the complete litany of the radical religious right wing.<br /><br />No doubt the popularity of this program will be used by future historians as proof that America lost its way in the early part of the this century. As a student of history myself I would characterize this program as being in a league with the propaganda produced by Goebbels for Hitler and some of the propaganda produced by Hollywood for the American audience during WWII.<br /><br />So if you want to use this as a teaching tool to help your students understand how subtle propaganda can be then by all means do so. Just be sure to purchase an inexpensive used copy so you can avoid enriching the ultra right wingers at Faux Network who produced this travesty. | 2 | full_train |
464 | Let's hope this is the final nightmare. This is the epitome of a good thing gone bad. Okay, there is still some enjoyment to be had, but only in the most mundane sense. Rachel Talalay had been there for the duration of this franchise, had been on the production staff and produced even. I don't know what she was thinking, but this debacle comes complete with the human video game boy and a guest appearance by<br /><br />Tom and Roseanne Arnold! I wish I had a clue what she was thinking when she wrote/directed this disappointing piece of garbage. She even tried to distract her audience from the fact that this movie was nothing more than an over-glorified popcorn movie instead of bearing any resemblance to horror, with the contrived use of a 3D ending. Aren't those glasses nifty? And you get to KEEP them! It's the equivalent of, you just spent $9.00 making me rich. Here's 10 cents. Now, don't you feel special!? Sorry, but for me, it just did not make me feel special. <br /><br />And Freddy's had yet another face-lift. This one was for the worst, I think. All the beautiful artistry that went into his "look" in the earlier films has been replaced by an obviously cheaper, less detailed set of prosthetics. He looks ... less like the burn victim he is supposed to be, and more like he has a skin disorder. Changing the lead's makeup like that so far into a series is about on the same level as changing the lead actor. But wait! They've done that, and done that. So I guess it doesn't matter. But it mattered to me. Freddy is no longer SCARY. He's just ... another low-rent monster like the Leprechaun. <br /><br />It's more...a dark comedy than the horror classic this series promises; riddled with what you can only hope the writers thought were witty one-liners and clever repartee (sadly, it fell short on both accounts). <br /><br />So there's nothing more to say than grab the popcorn and get ready to laugh, because there was not one scary or suspenseful moment in this entire film. <br /><br />It rates a 3.2/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :. | 2 | full_train |
465 | I had such high hopes for this film because I loved the original so much. It seems that Disney, however, is trying to perfect the art of crappy straight-to-DVD sequels. They deserve a razzie. Several, in fact. I thought the idea had merit, but the music was absolutely awful and the story wasn't much better. What happened to the great music Disney used to have in their films. Mary Poppins, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King...even Hercules and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. They've made so many great movies over the years that it's really sad that they've sunk to point of making sequels that aren't even good enough to put in theatres.<br /><br />I hope this movie is not an indication of things to come for the Walt Disney Corporation. | 2 | full_train |
466 | Sometimes you wonder how some people get funding to create a movie as bad as this one. You can only stand about 5 minutes of this utter piece of garbage before you stomp back into blockbuster and demand your money back. I will now look at Michael Clarke Duncan with apprehension...why....he lent his name to this vermin. | 0 | full_train |
467 | Intrigued by the synopsis (every gay video these days has a hunk on the cover; this is not necessarily to be construed as a good sign) I purchased BEN AND ARTHUR without knowing a thing about it. This is my second (and I assure you it will be my last) purchase of a CULTURE Q CONNECTION video. As far as I am concerned, this DVD is nothing but a blatant rip-off. I do not make this observation lightly I am a major collector of videos, gay and mainstream, and I can state with some authority and without hesitation that BEN AND ARTHUR is quite simply the worst film I have ever sat through in my life. Period. My collection boasts over 1,600 films (93% on them on DVD) and of those, well over 300 are gay and lesbian themed. I hardly own every gay movie ever made, but I am comfortable in stating that I pretty much purchase almost every gay video of interest that gets released, and very often I buy videos without knowing anything about the film. Sometimes, this makes for a pleasant surprise - Aimee & Jaguar, It's In The Water, Urbania and Normal are all examples of excellent gay titles that I stumbled upon accidentally. So when I read on the box that BEN AND ARTHUR concerned a conflict between gay lovers and the Christian Right, one of my favorite subjects, I decided to take the plunge sight unseen, despite my previously disappointing purchase of another CULTURE Q CONNECTION title, VISIONS OF SUGAR PLUMS. That film was pretty bad, but compared to BEN AND ARTHUR, it viewed like GONE WITH THE WIND. So what was so wrong with BEN AND ARTHUR? Plenty! To begin with, the "plot" such as it was, was totally ridiculous. This film almost made me sympathetic to the Christian Right we are asked to believe not only that a church would expel a member because his brother is gay, but that a priest would actually set up a mob style execution of a gay couple in order to save their souls (like this even makes sense). The writing is so poor that many scenes make no sense at all, and several plot points reflect no logic, follow-up or connection to the story. Murder and violence seem to be acceptable ends to the gay activist / right wing conflict on both sides, and the acting is so bad that it's difficult to imagine how anybody in this film got hired. The characters who are supposed to be straight are almost without exception clearly gay - and nelly stereotypes to boot; the gay characters are neither sexy nor interesting. This film is enough to put off anybody from buying gay themed videos forever, and the distributors should be ashamed of themselves. The only advantage this picture has over my other CULTURE Q Connection purchase, VISIONS OF SUGARPLAMS, is that this one has a soundtrack with clear dialogue. Hardly a distinction, since the script is so insipid that understanding the script only serves to make you more aware of how bad this film truly is. It is an embarrassment to Queer culture, and I intend to warn everyone I possibly can before they waste their money on it. At $9.95 this film would have been way overpriced; I understand that it's soon to be re-priced under $20, which is STILL highway robbery. I paid the original price of $29.95, and I never felt more cheated in my life. The only true laugh connected with this drivel is the reviews I have seen "user reviews" for this film on numerous websites, and there is always one or two that "praise" the director / writer / actor in such a way that it's obvious that the reviewer is a friend of this Ed Wood wannabe. How sad. How desperate. I just wish IMDb would allow you to assign zero stars - or even minus zero. If ever a film deserved it, this is it. | 0 | full_train |
468 | Apparently none of the previous reviewers,most of whom praise the film for its accuracy, have actually read a biography of Louis Pasteur.The most glaring inaccuracy is in the relationship between Pasteur and Napoleon III.Back in the 1930's the latter was invariably shown in a bad light.While far from an admirable character-he was an inept politician and a self-appointed "military genius" who allowed France to be dragged into a disastrous war,he was not the stupid reactionary depicted here. He had an intelligent interest in science,and like many other people in the 19th century saw a bright future because of the improvements it would bring.Far from exiling Pasteur, he was his PATRON,building him a laboratory and providing him with all the resources that he needed for his research.While the lab was under construction, Pasteur became gravely ill.A bureaucrat, deciding it was a waste of money to build a laboratory for someone who would soon be dead, ordered work halted on his own authority.When the emperor heard about this, his outrage shook the bureaucracy so that there was a flurry of buck-passing, and work promptly resumed.The Emperor personally visited Pasteur to comfort him and reassure him that he would get his lab.The emperor would often bring members of his court to admire Pasteur's projects,and it was obvious to everyone that Pasteur was one of the emperor's favorites.Pasteur's main worry concerning the Emperor was that Napoleon thought Pasteur was virtually a miracle worker who could do almost anything, and was constantly assigning him tasks outside of his previous experience.Pasteur, a very modest man, was always protesting this, but Napoleon would say that he had complete faith in him,and Pasteur despite his misgivings, always came through.They always had a close and friendly relationship,and after the Emperor was overthrown, Pasteur refused to say a bad word about him,grateful to the end of his life.<br /><br />The part about his daughter having the baby, and Pasteur sacrificing his principles to get a doctor, never happened.The part about the anthrax and rabies, for which he was famous, is generally correct, but the notion that the anthrax experiment raised him from obscurity to fame is false.He was famous and respected at the time this happened.This movie is OK from a dramatic standpoint,but very distorted as biography. | 2 | full_train |
469 | This mini-series is actually more entertaining than some others with much bigger budgets and grander aspirations. SOTD falls somewhere between "Kung-Fu" and "H R Pufnstuff" on the entertainment spectrum. If it weren't so long (nearly 3 hours) I think that kids would like it quite a bit. It's got adventure, action, "cliffhanger scenes", and not too much romance or other "icky" stuff. When you're young, you're not too critical of flexing rubber swords, campy acting, and scenes that are repeated. (At least two scenes are repeated identically in the movie, just as was done in old-time serials in order to bring the audience up to speed.) Finally, kids are usually more accepting of American English dialogue coming out of the mouths of Asian actors. (Not to mention the fact that several of the leading roles are played by non-Asian actors.) <br /><br />I was going to give this movie three stars, but I felt like the director, producers, and cast deserved some extra credit for at least carrying through on the project. This movie is not art, but, like painting your house, it actually took some time, effort, and discipline to get it made.<br /><br />Overall, not a recommended use for your time, but it might keep the kids entertained while traveling in the mini-van.<br /><br />Oh, yeah...hey, IMDb! "Dialogue" is the preferred and traditional spelling. Your spell-checking seems to think that "dialog" is the proper spelling. While "dialog" is acceptable, both Webster's and the OED consider it an alternative form. | 2 | full_train |
470 | A bunch of kids set up a theatre to have an all-night horror movie marathon. However, as the night goes on, there's somebody among them killing them off one by one. Who is it...and why? I saw this in a theatre way back in 1991. I was looking forward to it--but boy! It did not work at all. The premise is a good one, they have a very appealing young cast and some pros like Dee Wallace Stone on board...but it doesn't work. The story stops making sense halfway through (that could be because of some huge editing before the film was released), the killings are relatively bloodless (how this got an R rating is beyond me) and the unmasking of the killer at the end was boring and stupid.<br /><br />It's really too bad--this movie had potential. With a better script this could have become a great horror film. As it stands though it's mostly forgotten and the cast itself seems embarrassed by it (I heard Stone won't talk about this one). I give it a 3 and that's just for the cast. | 2 | full_train |
471 | A scientist (John Carradine--sadly) finds out how to bring the dead back to life. However they come back with faces of marble. Eventually this all leads to disaster.<br /><br />Boring, totally predictable 1940s outing. This scared me silly when I was a kid but just bores me now. I had to struggle to stay awake! With one exception, the acting is horrible. Such expressionless boring actors! Hopeless.<br /><br />There are some good things about this: Carradine, despite the script, actually gives a very good performance. And there are a few mildly creepy moments involving a ghost of a Great Dane walking through walls. There's also one of the worst-looking knockouts in cinema history. Still, none of this is fun enough to sit through this. Avoid. | 0 | full_train |
472 | Gwyneth Paltrow is absolutely great in this movie, but the story is, unfortunately, half-baked, and David Schwimmer's energy is sort of like cold mush. When he closes his mouth and gets serious for a moment or two there is a rush of what-might-have-been. Who thought 25-year-old kiddies would be entertaining? | 2 | full_train |
473 | I don't know if the problem I had with this movie is that I was not able to capture the way movies were done in the past but I believe that this one did not miss to make use of any of the the fashionable conventions available in the 40s to make a film. If you don't have anything better to do my advise is not to watch this movie but to read a book or to go out for a walk. | 2 | full_train |
474 | "The Domino Principle" is, without question, one of the worst thrillers ever made. Hardly any sense can be made of the convoluted plot and by the halfway point you'll want to throw your arms up in frustration and scream "I give up!!!"<br /><br />How Gene Hackman and director Stanley Kramer ever got involved in this mess must only be summed up by their paychecks.<br /><br />I hope they spent their money well. | 0 | full_train |
475 | Lorenzo Lamas stars as some type of CIA agent, who captures some exotic beauty named Alexa, kidnaps her daughter and forces her to fight her former employers. O.J Simpson is also on board to provide a dash of acting credibility for the not so talented ensemble. I must admit i'm not a fan of Lorenzo Lamas, or his movies. He stinks. However when compared to O.J Simpson and Lamas' comatose wife Kinmont, Lamas seems like ah, Jean-Claude Van Damme. I only saw CIA because of the renewed interest around the O.J Simpson trial, you see because if your parents had cable and the extra channels, you couldn't escape this movie. in 1994 you could go to an Amish community and some moron would have this playing in their portable TV. The movie itself is a collection of lame action sequences and would be intrigue although the shock value of O.J Simpson jumping after fireballs and exchanging would be one liners do provide some unintentional humor. Also where was Bobby Knight and Kobe Bryant to make this a complete camp classic? <br /><br />* out of 4-(Bad) | 0 | full_train |
476 | This serial is interesting to watch as an MST3K feature, but for todays audience that's all it is. I was really surprised to see the year it was made as 1952. Considering that fact alone makes this a solid (lowly?) 2 in my book. The cars used don't even look contemporary, they look like stuff from the 30's. It's basically Cody (the lone world's salvation? Sheesh talk about an insult to everyone else, like the military), anyway it's Cody in his nipple ring flying suit against Graber and Daley two dumb*ss henchman who sport handguns and an occasional ray gun thats pretty lame in its own right, enjoy. If you want to watch a really good serial see Flash Gordan, it's full of rockets that attack each other and a good evil nemesis and also good looking women, this has NONE of that. And Flash was made 15 or so years before this crap so you can give it some slack. Something made in 1952, this bad, deserves a 2. Nuff said. give it a 6 if your watching it as a MST3K episode, those guys have some good fun with it; a tweak of the nipples here, a tweak there and I'm flying! And now as an added bonus, I bring you the Commander Cody Theme song as originally sung by Joel and his two character bots Tom Servo and Crow aboard the satellite of love for episode eight The Enemy Planet:<br /><br />(Singing at the very beginning credits);<br /><br />(TOM SERVO SINGING) YOUR WATCHING COMMANDER CODY.... HE IS THE NEW CHARACTER FROM REPUBLIC,<br /><br />HE GETS IN TROUBLE EVERY WEEK... BUT HE'S SAVED BY EDITING,<br /><br />JUST A TWEAK OF HIS NIPPLES... SENDS HIM ON HIS WAY,<br /><br />A PUMPKIN HEAD AND A ROCKET PACK.... WILL SAVE THE DAY,<br /><br />(JOEL SINGING) HIS LABRATORY IS A BOXING RING... WHEN BAD GUYS COME TO MIX IT UP,<br /><br />SOMEBODY ALWAYS GETS KIDNAPPED... AND CODY HAS TO FIX IT UP,<br /><br />HE DRINKS HIS TEA AT AL'S CAFE... AND FLIES ALONG ON WIRES,<br /><br />HE BEATS THE CROOKS AND FLIES WITH HOOKS... AND PUTS OUT FOREST FIRES,<br /><br />(CROW SINGING)<br /><br />BAD GUYS BEWARE... CODY IS THERE,<br /><br />YOU'LL LIKE HIS HAIR IT'S UNDER HIS HELMUT... AND BECAUSE WE CAN'T THINK OF A GOOD RHYME,<br /><br />THAT'S THE END OF THE COMMANDER CODY THEME SONG... SO SIT RIGHT BACK WITH A WILL OF GRANITE,<br /><br />AND WATCH CHAPTER EIGHT, CAUSE THAT'S THE ENEMY PLANET | 0 | full_train |
477 | OK, how's this for original- this mean, rich old geezer leaves his estate to his adult children, all of them ungrateful losers, and two creepy servants, provided they spend the week in his spooky old house. What happens that night will surprise only those who haven't seen a movie or television show before. After a string of murders in which the victims look like they're bleeding restaurant ketchup, we have a painfully obvious twist ending. The cast is lead by some once respectable actors must have been desperate for their paychecks. There are also a few second-tier actors who were rising at the time but long forgotten now. As a result, the film generates all the drama and mystery of an episode of "Matlock." I will give credit where it's due- the closing scene is clever and amusing, if you're still awake. | 0 | full_train |
478 | This movie was lame, lame, lame. What a build up! What a let down. All form, no substance. A terrible waste of talent and time. Would not recommend it to my husband's dog, who will watch anything. | 0 | full_train |
479 | Evidently when you offer a actor enough money they will do anything. I am not sure how much John Rys-Daves got, but most of the money he made should go to his fans as an apology for even being associated with such a ROTTEN movie. The special effects were worse then effects from the 1950's B movies and the acting of the rest of the cast was even worse. As to how bad the acting was a child gave the second best performance in my opinion. The English was terribly accented and I think no one could really even speak English they just memorized how the words should sound instead of memorizing the script and trying to make their character both "life-like" and real. | 0 | full_train |
480 | There's a major difference between releasing an original, intense, edge-of-your-seat, scary, gore-fest, and doing like filmmaker Eli Roth and his team have done with "Cabin Fever" and simply acted like it. The film follows five college graduates into a cabin in the woods that begins to prove fatal as one after the other succumbs to this mysterious, fast-acting, flesh-eating disease. It's not long before the friends turn on one another, and can barely stand the sight of one another, much less want to be in the same vicinity as them. As gross as it all sounds, there's a certain spark behind the basic premise of this film that could have worked, in the hands of a less cocky filmmaker. Unfortunately what we end up with is poorly drawn characters whose sole purpose seems to be to look beautiful at the beginning to make the inevitable decomposition more contrasting, a hackneyed script so profanity-laden as to leave the viewer tuning out the dialogue, and several incomprehensible subplots that motivate little more than (in one instance) an on-screen appearance by director Roth. This is sloppy film-making in several ways! Avoid this time devourer. | 2 | full_train |
481 | This is probably one of the worst "wanna be a low budget hit films" to credit the dinosaur genre. The film is so predictable you could go away, cook yourself dinner, go answer the phone or whatever and when you're back you'll know exactly what has happened. The special effects are so poor you would have thought Lego bricks were used and the "super fast" dinosaurs were so tame that it makes a pet dog look like a super predator. The acting is over cooked. They try so hard, yet there just isn't enough character behind them to get into the characters and as for the scientist... Yeah okay we know exactly whats going to happen to the blonde chick in glasses. Stereotypical was created for films like this. If you want to watch this film, I suggest you aren't in as a serious mood as the cast and crew obviously were. And if you are really really into dinosaurs and know everything in the world about them, don't watch it, you might break the screen - the facts are that far off. | 0 | full_train |
482 | Annoying, static comedy with a painfully miscast Peter Sellers as a smarmy, self-centered Casanova who always has his way with the ladies. A major blemish on Sellers' filmography, and, even worse, a film that seems to have been made solely to satisfy the ego of its star. (*) | 2 | full_train |
483 | "Nat" (voiced by Trevor Gagnon), along with his brainiac friend "IQ" (voiced by Philip Bolden) and the always hungry "Scooter" (David Gore) are kids with big dreams. They want to be the first flies in space. And what encourages their dreams is the first spacecraft to land on the moon, the Apollo 11, is waiting for its historic trip on the launch pad near where the three hang out.<br /><br />The first thing you notice is the animation of the film. I found it done very well done. The scenery had depth to it, as things in the distance actually looked like they were behind the focus of the scenes. I didn't see the movie in 3-D, as it was broadcast on HBO. However, I could see that there really wasn't any scenes which took advantage of the 3-D effects except a fight between characters near the end. I also wasn't really impressed with the design of the characters. To me, they didn't look like anything resembling a fly, especially in the coloring. The flies were an unusual blue-gray that was kind of distracting to me.<br /><br />The performances from the cast was not bad, but it wasn't good either. There were many times I focused more on my computer than the story. The writing was certainly written for a younger audience, with comedic moments that will make younger kids laugh. I saw nothing for adults, like jokes that they'll get the punchline for the adults to understand the meaning.<br /><br />History was not followed in this film. In fact, I think it was completely ignored, as the main focus was the flies. I also hated when a well known astronaut popped up on the screen and explained that the stories about the flies in the film was a work of fiction, and no flies were on Apollo 11. I did like how he thanked the men and women who sacrificed their lives for space exploration though.<br /><br />If you are an adult, this is not for you. It was not made for the entire family. This is certainly just for kids. But, save this one for a rainy day. | 0 | full_train |
484 | It's hard to believe an "action" packed Jet Li movie could be so boring, but this was transcendant trash. The plot is an amalgam of other Hong Kong chopsocky flicks. The martial arts action is all special effects and no human talent. <br /><br />It's a comic book story about a group of super-human soldiers who are to be killed because they're mentally unstable, one of their number (Li) who holds off an incompetent army to save them and rebuilds a life as a pacifist librarian. The saved killers resurface with an Austin Powers quality plot to take over the world, and Li sheds his new life to save the world.<br /><br />The version I saw was dubbed, and that may have accentuated the cheesiness of the wafer-thin plot and comic-book 25 cent special effects. But I suspect even Ninja-Turtle-watching 8-year olds would have found this juvenile and hollow. | 2 | full_train |
485 | Rip off of "Scream" or especially "I know what you did last summer", there's some entertainment here, and a little scary, but they needed some originality.<br /><br />An entertainment score? 6.5/10 Overall? 5.5/10 | 2 | full_train |
486 | We all have seen some unending epics in our times, but this one really tops them all! The movie is so long and so slow, that, just to put things in perspective, i felt a lot older when i left movie hall, than I entered it. At almost 4 hours length, it could have rather been made into a tele-serial.<br /><br />What starts as a promising comedy slowly loses its pace. Nikhil advani has woven the plot around 6 love stories and he cant make justice to any one of them... There is no interconnection between them to start with, and links shown in last 20 minutes just seem to be forced to connect the story.<br /><br />Situation is made worse by Silly dialogues (most of them repeated in Hindi cinema over years)and stupid cinematography.<br /><br />Priyanka doesn't realise that she actually needs to play her role rather than just looking glam on screen... An utter waste of beauty without acting skills.<br /><br />And then there is loud-is-humorous Govinda & my-face-twists-better-than-jim-carrey Akshay Khanna who keep belching at the top of their lungs to irritate already tired viewers.<br /><br />Only good part in movie is John & Vidya's love story & nice acting/comedy by sohail & Isha. But they are so good at their roles that just these two couples could have justified the movie without jumbling it with other bunch of characters. Their brilliance gets lost in the midst of other substandard plot lines.<br /><br />My guess - Director was making two separate movies(may be more!) and some beginner assistant mixed up all the records, beyond a point of sorting them out, so director was left with no choice to show it all as a single movie...<br /><br />Watch it only if you want to test your patience!!! | 0 | full_train |
487 | I sort of accidentally ended up watching this movie. I'm still not sure if I regret it or not. I felt like I was watching the film made by that group of film school students that didn't quite make the cut. It plays up every Hollywood cliché imaginable, all the while flogging us with the 'corporations are the ultimate evil' message. Subtlety this movie does not know. As far as that goes, it even manages to provide it's own spoilers.<br /><br />The story appears to be a computer nerd's fantasy world come true. The lead character is an attractive teenage boy with a girlfriend, yet is a programming genius and apparent hacker (I think), among many other nerd-fantasy-come-true elements that you'll have to see for yourself.<br /><br />As well, I should've known it would be a z-movie when I saw Ned Bellamy... he tends to be a good tip-off.<br /><br />Can't recommend this one, I'm afraid. | 0 | full_train |
488 | Revolt of the Zombies is BAD. There is nothing remotely entertaining about the movie. It is dull, lifeless, poorly acted, and poorly scripted. I've often complained that the original Dracula is a little slow for my taste, well this movie makes Dracula look like a roller coaster ride. The 65 minute running time seemed like 165 minutes.<br /><br />The story: An expedition is sent to Cambodia to find the secrets of mind control through "zombification". One man finds the secret and uses it to make the woman he loves marry him. Once this happens, he releases the zombies under his control to horrific consequences. That's it. That's the whole story.<br /><br />For most of the movie, I was trying to figure out where I had seen the male lead. He looked so familiar. I had plenty of time to think this over. Nothing was happening in the movie. Just before the "zombies revolted", it hit me. It was Dean Jagger. I had seen him recently as the General in White Christmas. This is how I "entertained" myself throughout most of the movie.<br /><br />I'm just glad I didn't buy the DVD for this movie. King of the Zombies is on the other side and it's a masterpiece of film making compared with this movie. For what it's worth, I'll give it a 2/10. (I won't go to 1/10 because, believe it or not, I've seen worse.) | 0 | full_train |
489 | This is one of the worst films I have *ever* seen! It is bad, even at TV Movie level standards. The plot is diabolically flawed, and the known names in this film are wasted on confused, uncertain characters. I don't know how the director managed to keep this excuse of a film together - it is that bad. Billed as a 'Psychological Horror Thriller' - it is certainly Horrific. There is nothing Thrilling about it. And it could do you Psychological damage! The initial opening scenes held such promise - a possible embarkation on whether the soul is just an aspect of the brain, but the utter shambles that followed the car-crash scene is beyond belief. No matter how hard you try, you couldn't care less about the characters. There are so many sprinkled ideas that the film is at best a collage of disconnected phrases from Chinese philosophers, and at worst the film would actually make you go Brain Dead!<br /><br />I have purchased over 300 films on DVD, and this is the FIRST one I'm going to get my money back on. STEER CLEAR. | 0 | full_train |
490 | Okay, you have:<br /><br />Penelope Keith as Miss Herringbone-Tweed, B.B.E. (Backbone of England.) She's killed off in the first scene - that's right, folks; this show has no backbone!<br /><br />Peter O'Toole as Ol' Colonel Cricket from The First War and now the emblazered Lord of the Manor.<br /><br />Joanna Lumley as the ensweatered Lady of the Manor, 20 years younger than the colonel and 20 years past her own prime but still glamourous (Brit spelling, not mine) enough to have a toy-boy on the side. It's alright, they have Col. Cricket's full knowledge and consent (they guy even comes 'round for Christmas!) Still, she's considerate of the colonel enough to have said toy-boy her own age (what a gal!)<br /><br />David McCallum as said toy-boy, equally as pointlessly glamourous as his squeeze. Pilcher couldn't come up with any cover for him within the story, so she gave him a hush-hush job at the Circus.<br /><br />and finally:<br /><br />Susan Hampshire as Miss Polonia Teacups, Venerable Headmistress of the Venerable Girls' Boarding-School, serving tea in her office with a dash of deep, poignant advice for life in the outside world just before graduation. Her best bit of advice: "I've only been to Nancherrow (the local Stately Home of England) once. I thought it was very beautiful but, somehow, not part of the real world." Well, we can't say they didn't warn us.<br /><br />Ah, Susan - time was, your character would have been running the whole show. They don't write 'em like that any more. Our loss, not yours.<br /><br />So - with a cast and setting like this, you have the re-makings of "Brideshead Revisited," right?<br /><br />Wrong! They took these 1-dimensional supporting roles because they paid so well. After all, acting is one of the oldest temp-jobs there is (YOU name another!)<br /><br />First warning sign: lots and lots of backlighting. They get around it by shooting outdoors - "hey, it's just the sunlight!"<br /><br />Second warning sign: Leading Lady cries a lot. When not crying, her eyes are moist. That's the law of romance novels: Leading Lady is "dewy-eyed."<br /><br />Henceforth, Leading Lady shall be known as L.L.<br /><br />Third warning sign: L.L. actually has stars in her eyes when she's in love. Still, I'll give Emily Mortimer an award just for having to act with that spotlight in her eyes (I wonder . did they use contacts?)<br /><br />And lastly, fourth warning sign: no on-screen female character is "Mrs." She's either "Miss" or "Lady."<br /><br />When all was said and done, I still couldn't tell you who was pursuing whom and why. I couldn't even tell you what was said and done.<br /><br />To sum up: they all live through World War II without anything happening to them at all.<br /><br />OK, at the end, L.L. finds she's lost her parents to the Japanese prison camps and baby sis comes home catatonic. Meanwhile (there's always a "meanwhile,") some young guy L.L. had a crush on (when, I don't know) comes home from some wartime tough spot and is found living on the street by Lady of the Manor (must be some street if SHE's going to find him there.) Both war casualties are whisked away to recover at Nancherrow (SOMEBODY has to be "whisked away" SOMEWHERE in these romance stories!)<br /><br />Great drama. | 2 | full_train |
491 | Watching TRUTH ABOUT LOVE (is this a double entendre about the star?) is like plugging in white noise or manufactured water sounds to help you sleep - you put it in the DVD slot because there is nothing else left on the store shelves and you are in need of distraction after a hectic day. And it works for that for that purpose: being a British romantic comedy it is a bit more.<br /><br />The story is a rather simple one about a wife Alice (Jennifer Love Hewitt) married to an increasingly distant husband Sam (Jimi Mistry) who has put their love life on hold due to the burdens of his busy law practice. His partner Archie (Dougray Scott) is fond of both Sam and Alice, but has a longtime attraction to Alice that goes beyond friendship. Alice pals with her sister Felicity (Kate Miles), a free love advocate, who encourages Alice to have affairs. On Valentine's Day, after a drinking binge with her sister, Alice mails a card to Sam signed 'Anonymous' as a test to see if Sam responds, testing his fidelity. At the same time Archie mails a radish seed packet to Alice on which he has inscribed a suggestive love not. Both have ex post facto regrets. Sam in fact is spending time with a lover Katya (Branka Katic) and is indeed cheating on Alice. Alice arranges assignations with Sam via email and phone calls and plans to meet Sam in disguise as 'Anonymous' to test his fidelity. The entire cast of characters gets caught up in the silly charade and the ending proves that real love must be based on truth - and how that results in the various pairings is the surprise (of sorts) of the fluffy script.<br /><br />British comedies work because of the quality of writing and the tight quality of acting. Perhaps had director John Hay elected to cast a British actress as Alice instead of pasting a phony accent on Jennifer Love Hewitt the result may have been improved. But in the end this story by Peter Bloore bounces between mildly humorous and pathetic in its messages. One terrible distraction is a musical score that is consistently so loud that it covers all the dialogue and is intrusive. There are some nice scenes of London and a few moments of passable humor, but in the end this little film is truly best utilized as background music/white noise. Grady Harp | 2 | full_train |
492 | Seriously. This is one of the most stupid family shows of all time.<br /><br />Plot- A family without a mother and 3 "dads" raise 3 little girls in San Francisco, California.<br /><br />Characters- Neat freak Danny, cartoon loving Joey, hair obsessed Jesse, spoiled brat Michelle, stupid DJ, and almost normal Stephanie. The creators of this show really want you to hate the characters, don't they? <br /><br />Therefore, I do not think anyone should watch this show. I only chuckled at a few moments in the show's whole running, and I think that instead of lethal injection, all criminals should be forced to watch this show, a torture far worse than anything else.<br /><br />1.5/10 or: D | 0 | full_train |
493 | This movie is just not worth your time. Its reliance upon New-Age mysticism serves as its only semi-interesting distraction. The plot is one that has been re-cycled countless times.<br /><br />I was only prompted to even spend the time to put in a comment when I noted that some have tried to prop-up the reputation of this drivel. Their motivation & objectivity is dubious, since they encourage you not to look at the movies faults, but at its well intentioned message of New Age consciousness.<br /><br />So would it be alright for some twenty to thirty Evangelical Christians, or Islamic Fundamentalists to pour in positive ratings about movies/television that support their views? In spite of the poor qualities of production, or the lack of truth in any of its supposed historic basis? I hope not.<br /><br />I am sure the followers will come right behind me to say flowery things about this movie, in spite of the truth. | 0 | full_train |
494 | ....because if I was, I may have wished it was me being crucified on a wooden cross! I'm still trying to determine the plot of this movie - and I'm being "generous" that there was even a plot to begin with. As previously mentioned, it's a misnomer on the cover of the DVD that Richard Dreyfuss is actually the star. He was barely in the movie. And if he was indeed "frustrated" as the back cover indicated he was, well, that's probably because he said YES to be in this disaster of a movie and couldn't get out of it! The movie really seemed to focus on Jared Martin, and what his role in the movie was supposed to be, other than the extreme close -ups, was not as big of a mystery as to what Gene Barry's role actually was - or wasn't. And speaking of "big"...whomever had the bright idea to fit Gene Barry in the Humpty Dumpty attire, which showcased his trousers literally pulled up to his chin, should be sentenced to hard time by watching this movie stoned sober. I could go on and on about how horrendous this movie was, from the dialogue not matching the "actors'" mouths (think Clutch Cargo), to the erratic jumping from scene to scene (again, being generous even calling the frames of pictures "scenes"), to the lack of a plot.... However, if you're into bad early 70s genre and if you're in a cottage in Michigan with nothing but this movie and a box of kid & cat pictures, I recommend having a good bottle of wine before you embark on this weird ride of a movie because you'll be thankful that you may not remember it the next day! | 0 | full_train |
495 | I just finished watching this film and WOW was that bad. Actually the only thing that kept me watching was that it was SO MONUMENTALLY bad it was kind of entertaining. The action of the characters is hilarious, from the hyper-dramatic way they fall to gunfire, to their incredibly bad acting (were the bad guys all just pulled off the street, or were they actually actors?), to incredibly bad delivery of lines, to their inexplicable actions (if you are going to try and shoot someone through a doorway as they enter, obviously the thing to do is shoot directly at the doorknob!!). This film must break some record for worst written and delivered lines.<br /><br />The camera work was also really bad - you can hardly see what's going on in the fight scenes due to switching camera angles and shakiness.<br /><br />I would have voted "1" except that I do like Chiba and sidekick Sue Shihomi, and I was entertained by a couple of scenes: 1) breaking of a villain's arm so the bone pops out of the skin (that's gotta hurt) 2) a drug kingpin eating a brown-furred animal (a monkey??) by hacking away at the carcass with a meat cleaver 3) Sonny Chiba's performing some impromptu eye surgery on a guy with his fingers.<br /><br />I am actually a big fan of Sonny Chiba but this one is really not worth anyone's time. I've seen about 7 or 8 of his films and have come to the conclusion that the only ones worth watching (and they are great!) are the Street Fighter series, and The Killing Machine. I've also heard the Executioner and Golgo 13 are good. I recommend sticking to those ones. | 2 | full_train |
496 | The script for this TV soap opera is so bad that even A. Hopkins at some point had to play like an undergrad drama-student so as to bring some life in his script-dead character. I do not know whether this was the purpose of the director, but Hopkins' Ciano reeked nothing but vanity, fear and lack of self-esteem. The real Ciano possibly was all that but then, why make a movie about him? Mussolini was a bit more convincing, and his long way down was as if closer to the truth. Edda Mussolini was plain ridiculous (not because of Sarandon, but because of the impotent script), while she had to be the central character of this alleged familial drama. Watch it only if you enjoy Venezuelan soap opera. | 2 | full_train |
497 | In 1987, John Hughes wrote and directed 'Planes, Trains and Automobiles', which was a hilarious and poignant comedy the best thing he's ever done. Ten years on he's reduced to again recycling the plot of 'Home Alone' in this second sequel, which is not connected to the other films but is equally uninspired and sadistic. The four crooks that's right, four! And one of them is a girl! Congratulations, Hughes, for introducing this revolutionary change to the series! are electrocuted with metal chairs, brained with barbells and blinded with paint, ha ha ha haaaaaaaa ha, while the new kid is even less charming than Culkin. You'd think that the departure of almost all the key players from the first two films would stop Hughes from fossilising the same old routines, but the only surprise is that not even he turned up for 'Home Alone 4'. | 2 | full_train |
498 | The NSA, CIA, FBI, FSB and all other snoop agency in the world should watch this movie to gain information as to how to spy on people. (as MST3k Commentary states it..."Sanata has the dirt on every! Santa's Tentacles reach far and wide! There is no hiding from the Klaus Organization")<br /><br />From telescopes that can spy over millions of miles to ears that can hear everything. Its amazing that the CIA doesn't have Santa on the payroll. <br /><br />Satan's dance routine is hilarious. Pitch...he is so useless.<br /><br />The cheese factor in of this movie is tremendous. Very low budget but so fun to watch. I recommend watching the Mystery Science Theatre 3000 version for even more laughs.<br /><br />You even get a laugh at the missfortune of the good kids.<br /><br />I give this a 1 for production quality and a 10 for pure cheese and fun factor. | 0 | full_train |
499 | What on earth has become of our dear Ramu? Is this the same man who made Sarkar, Satya, and Comapny? I refuse to believe so. If AAG was Ramu's most ambitious project, he has clearly jumped off the high cliff he has ascended by giving the industry some of the greatest works of all times. This movie is made to fall like a brick. I was cringing to leave the theater, but I was forced to sit because I wouldn't have been able to take my car out of the parking lot before others also left. Else, nothing would have made me sit beyond interval.<br /><br />This movie is nowhere close to Sholay. It doesn't even come near it within a mile. I believe Ramu surely loves The Godfather more than Sholay, since Sarkar was a classic piece of work. I read Ramu's interview a couple of days back, in which the interviewer said that Ramu doesn't sleep for more than 4 hours a day, that too not at a stretch. I completely agree with this now, as his lack of sleep has probably taken its toll on the movie.<br /><br />There is no power in the performance. Amitabh Bachchan doesn't even look scary. He looked more terrifying in the few posters and wallpapers I saw earlier. Ramu's favorite Nisha Kothari did a fantastic job in Sarkar because she didn't have many dialogs (in fact none if I remember clearly). She opened her mouth in this movie, and has found a place in history. The new guy playing Jai's role seems to have that brash look, but didn't manage Jai's role at all. I cant go on... Im sorry... my pain is too big for me to manage right now.<br /><br />I promised myself throughout the movie that I will watch the original Sholay once more just to see that it is still there.<br /><br />Bottom Line: Horrible movie. The media and critics are going to cook Ramu's goose. And just to remind all readers once more, I am one of the biggest Ramu fans, and even I cant spare him for this act. | 0 | full_train |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.